Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone: Cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide
It is very uncertain whether closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling changes cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide compared with safe handling alone (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs It is very uncertain whether closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling changes cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide compared with safe handling alone (very low certainty). Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.09 [0, 2.79] | Not reported | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for reducing exposure to infusional… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.