ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2015
Occupational exposure to blood borne pathogens among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study of a registry in Colombia.
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Incidence of occupational HIV seroconversion among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Availability of secondary healthcare data for conducting pharmacoepidemiology studies in Colombia: A systematic review.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2020Pooled it
- Occupational diseases in dentistry: Prevention.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Prevalence of serum HBV markers and management of occupational exposure to HBV among healthcare workers in a tertiary hospital.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Descriptive review of junior OB/GYN physicians' work task financial compensation in German hospitals.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOccupational exposure to blood borne pathogens caused by percutaneous injuries or mucosal contamination is frequent among Healthcare Workers (HCW).
methodsA cross-sectional analysis of HCW with an occupational exposure to blood reported to professional risk insurance agencies between 2009 and 2014 was performed. Comparisons between groups according to exposure level (mild, moderate, and severe) were evaluated.
resultsTwo thousand, four hundred three reports were classified according exposure as mild 2.7 %, moderate 74.8 %, severe 21.9 %. Factors related: health sciences student with mild exposure events [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 11.91, 95 % CI 5.13-27.61, p < 0.00001], and physician with moderate exposure events (AOR 1.90, 95 % CI 1.17-3.07, p = 0.009). Factors inversely related: physician with severe exposure events (AOR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.32-0.91, p = 0.02) and health sciences student with moderate exposure events (AOR 0.08, 95 % CI 0.04-0.15, p < 0.00001). It was found an important relationship between severe events with infectious diseases specialist assessment, and follow-up adherence. Additionally, a case of Human Immunodeficiency Virus seroconversion was presented (0.0004 %), no other seroconversions were observed.
conclusionsOccupational exposure events must be managed according to established protocols, but adherence failure was evident with the exception of severe exposure cases. Thus, interventions to enhance occupational safety are required. Occupation must be considered as a risk factor during initial assessment of events.
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.