ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2017
Accidental blood exposures among emergency medicine residents and young physicians in France: a national survey.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the epidemiological characteristics of blood or fluid exposure (BFE) and occupational infection risk among emergency medicine (EM) residents and young physicians (<35 years old) in France. We led a cross-sectional, anonymous, online survey. 1779 participants were contacted with a response rate of 36 % (n = 633). Among the respondents, 459 (72 %) reported at least one BFE. Among participants with at least one BFE, 35 % (n = 163) never reported the exposure to the relevant medical authorities or support. Among participants who reported exposure, 63 % (n = 232) did it immediately. Among participants who never or not systematically reported their BFE, most of them (62 %, n = 181/289) did not do so because the procedure was too long, and 28 % (n = 82/289) estimated the risk as low even if only one-third (n = 166/458) checked their HIV status even though the BFE was at a transmission risk. Circumstances in which the participants had the most BFE were: suturing 57 % (n = 262/457) and when making precipitated gestures 24 % (n = 111/457). The latest exposures were caused by a solid needle in 42 % (n = 191/455) or hollow-bore needle in 27 % (n = 123/455). Post-exposure reporting rates were low. Reporting procedure itself and self-management were the main reasons for BFE underreporting. Simplifying procedures might increase BFE reporting, and allow appropriate post-exposure counseling and/or prophylaxis.
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.