Glass contamination in parenterally administered medication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper reports a study examining glass particle contamination in two ampoule sizes under three different experimental conditions (n = 18 in each group). BACKGROUND: While existing literature is clear that glass contamination occurs on opening single-dose glass ampoules, the clinical significance of intramuscular administration of glass particles is equivocal. Current nursing practice standards do not adequately address this issue in terms of aspiration or filtration techniques that can minimize risk to patients. METHODS: A computer microscope was used to compare the number and size of glass particles aspirated into a syringe between two needle sizes [18 gauge (G) (130 microm lumen diameter) and 21 gauge (90 microm lumen diameter)] without filters and 19G (110 microm lumen diameter) filtered needles. Data were collected in 2002. RESULTS: At least one glass particle was found in 22% of the 1-mL ampoules, and 56% and 39% of the 2-mL ampoules, using 18G and 21G needles, respectively, had glass contaminants. Many of the 2-mL ampoules produced multiple glass particles on opening. Use of 19G filtered needles resulted in no glass particles. There was a significant difference in mean particle size between the 18G and 21G groups of 2-mL ampoules. CONCLUSION: Our results support the existing literature in that larger bore unfiltered needles increased the risk of aspirating more glass and other particles than smaller bore or filter needles. These data add further support to the use of filtered needles in administering IM medications to patients who receive ongoing scheduled IM injections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".