Cost Reduction and Care Quality in Resource-Limited Settings – A Protocol for An Umbrella Review of Sterile versus Examination Gloves for Wound Care

  1. Cyril E. Dzah
  2. Joy G. L. Bulley
  3. Valentine K. Dzah
Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

Sterile gloves are widely used in wound care due to their perceived protection against infection. However, the high cost of sterile gloves poses challenges in resource-limited settings. On the other hand, examination or clean gloves (non-sterile) are more affordable and easily accessible but are often perceived as less protective against infection. This umbrella review aims to compare the use of sterile versus examination gloves for wound care in terms of care quality (protection against infection) and cost, and explore the implications for healthcare delivery in low-resource environments.

Methods and Analysis

This study will be conducted as an overview of systematic reviews. A comprehensive search of PubMed, CINAHL and MEDLINE will be undertaken to identify relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing sterile and examination gloves in wound care and or minor surgical procedures. Data will be extracted and synthesized narratively. The AMSTAR 2 tool will be used for quality appraisal of included systematic reviews.

Ethics and Dissemination

As this study involves secondary data from published systematic reviews, ethical approval will not be required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant global health and clinical care conferences.

PROSPERO Registration Number

CRD420251051136

Strengths and Limitations of This Study

  • This study will provide a high-level synthesis of existing systematic reviews on glove use in wound care and or minor surgical procedures.

  • The study will employ a narrative synthesis with subgroup analysis where applicable, to enable a better understanding of findings.

  • The study will use the AMSTAR 2 tool to assess the quality of included systematic reviews.

  • Results may be limited by variability in outcome reporting and the number of high-quality systematic reviews available.

  • The overview will not include primary studies not covered in existing systematic reviews.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2025.05.21.25328093v1 on medRxiv