ArticleGlobal journal of health science2015
Prevalence and Reporting of Needle Stick Injuries: A Survey of Surgery Team Members in Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences in 2012.
Article in Global journal of health science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of operating room nurses' exposure to biological hazards: development and psychometric evaluation of a scale.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Why Should Viral Markers Be Mandatory in Ocular Surgeries: A Hospital Based Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- Trends of voluntary reporting of needlestick injuries and hepatitis B vaccination status among health-care workers of a tertiary health care center in Puducherry.Journal of laboratory physiciansArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgeons are one of the groups, most highly exposed to the risk of needle stick injuries at work. The present study aims to determine the prevalence and reporting of needle stick injuries during the first 6 months of 2012, in faculty surgeons affiliated to the Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences.
methodsIn a cross-sectional descriptive-analytical survey, 29 surgeons were studied based on the census method. A reliable and valid questionnaire was used as a research instrument to collect the data. Data was analyzed using SPSS v.16 and based on descriptive and inferential statistics.
resultsAmong 29 recruited surgeons, 5 (17.2%) had needle stick injuries during the 6 months, only one of whom had followed the established guidelines about reporting and following treatment. The most common instrument causing injury was the suture needle (60%). Significant differences were found in both groups of the injured and non-injured in term of gender (X(2)=5.612, P= 0.003), and number of patients (Z= 2.40, P=0.016) and daily working hours (Z=2.85, P=0.04).
conclusionsIn relation to the relatively high prevalence of needle stick injuries among the surgeons and their lack of reporting, it is suggested that the Safety Guidelines in the operating room are carefully observed. Moreover, safer and lower risk surgical Instruments should be used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.