Gleser 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Simulation study, quasi‐randomised study based on alternation How was the simulation performed? A volunteer HCW donned appropriate sized glove and then wetted each hand with fluorescent solution and distributed this solution equally on the glove's surfaces to simulate an external glove contamination. Immediately thereafter, the volunteer removed their gloves, and their hands were then examined using a UV Box (Hand Hygeine Teaching Box "Sharing Expertise; B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany) How was the exposure simulated? 5 mL of a fluorescent solution (Schülke Optics Training fluorescent lotion; Schülke & Mayr GmbH, Vienna, Austria) on each hand
Participants	N = 317 (~70% female) volunteer HCWs on 35 hospital wards in a tertiary care university hospital Intervention: N = 146 (104 nurses, 53 physicians) Control: N = 171 (118 nurses, 53 physicians)
Interventions	Intervention: modified PPE: tabs on gloves Doffy Glove, modified nitrile gloves with a textured small flap (doffing aid) above the thumb area positioned laterally on the wrist when worn that can be gripped during glove removal Control: standard nitrile medical examination gloves made according to the same material formulation and manufacturing process by the same company on behalf of IP Gloves GmbH
Outcomes	Contamination: any visible fluorescence on the volunteer's skin
Notes	Location: Germany; no funding or conflict of interest reported, however first author is also CEO of the start‐up that developed and market the new types of gloves.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "Participants were randomised for the use of either standard gloves or Doffy Gloves on an alternate daily basis" Judgement comment: quasi‐randomisation; big difference in number in intervention or control group
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No description provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Study could not be blinded but unlikely that participants could have influenced the outcome, which was assessed by observers
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Assessors of contamination were aware of which glove was used and subjective assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	No study protocol provided
Other bias	High risk	Study authors have a big financial interest in a positive evaluation of their new product