Skip to Main Content
I'm looking for
hidden1hidden2
Cochrane review result chart
Adapted from Tanner et al 2006

Results

10 studies in the Tanner review could be systematically reviewed for perforation rates in single versus double-gloving and demonstrated double-gloving was significantly more efficient in preventing perforations in the inner glove: 11% of single gloves perforated; 3% of undergloves perforated with double-gloving.   
Significantly more punctures were detected with Biogel Puncture Indication System gloves.  

Mischke et al also demonstrated that double-gloving significantly reduced the risk for innerglove perforation.  There was no significant difference in outer glove perforations between single- and double-gloving, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity with double gloves.   

The evidence from these two systematic reviews confirms that double-gloving provides better protection against blood contamination and inner glove perforations.   

hidden1hidden2
hidden1hidden2

Knowledge

More insight
hidden1hidden2

'References'

Contact us
Cookies

Cookies help us deliver our services and provide personalized experiences. By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. You can opt out by clicking on the following link

Mölnlycke Close

Healthcare Professional Confirmation

The information on the page you are about to enter is intended for healthcare professionals only. By clicking the box below you confirm that you are a healthcare professional.