Summary of findings 6. Procedures: Doffing with double gloves versus doffing with single gloves.
| Doffing with double gloves compared to doffing with single gloves for preventing contact with contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff | ||||||
| Patient or population: Healthcare staff volunteers Settings: Simulation study Intervention: Doffing with double gloves Comparison: Doffing with single gloves | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Doffing with single gloves | Doffing with double gloves | |||||
|
Contamination: virus detected ‐ All body parts Follow‐up: post intervention |
778 per 1000 | 280 per 1000 (124 to 607) | RR 0.36 (0.16 to 0.78) | 18 (1 cross‐over study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | Non‐randomised cross‐over study; the analyses were unadjusted for the paired nature of the data but the results are similar to those analysed taking into account the paired nature of the data |
| Compliance with guidance ‐ Noncompliance: any error Follow‐up: post intervention |
667 per 1000 | 720 per 1000 (467 to 1000) | RR 1.08 (0.7 to 1.67) | 18 (1 cross‐over study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | |
| Infection with EVD | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 0 (0 studies) |
See comment | No studies evaluated the effect of the interventions on infection rates. |
| *The basis for the assumed risk is the control group risk. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 This is a simulation study so we downgraded with one level because of indirectness. 2 One cross over study with 18 participants so we downgraded with one level because of imprecision.