Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27581947›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2016

Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rami A Ballout, Batoul Diab, Alain C Harb, Rami Tarabay, Selma Khamassi, Elie A Akl

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Sharps injuries among healthcare workers in Liberia and Ghana: a cross-sectional survey.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Causes of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries When Using Devices with and without Safety Features.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  9. Health Care-Associated Infections and the Radiology Department.Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Rami A BalloutFaculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Batoul DiabLebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon.
Alain C HarbDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Riad-El-Solh, P.O. Box: 11-0236, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon.
Rami TarabayLebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon.
Selma KhamassiWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Elie A AklDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Riad-El-Solh, P.O. Box: 11-0236, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon. ea32@aub.edu.lb.
American University of Beirut · LBLebanese University · LBWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe acquisition of needle-stick injuries (NSI) in a healthcare setting poses an occupational hazard of transmitting blood-borne pathogens from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs). The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the efficacy and safety of using safety-engineered intravenous devices and safety-engineered phlebotomy devices by HCWs.

methodsWe included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing safety-engineered devices to conventional/standard devices that lack safety features for delivering intravenous injections and/or for blood-withdrawal procedures (phlebotomy). The outcomes of interest included NSI rates, and blood-borne infections rates among HCWs and patients. We conducted an extensive literature search strategy using the OVID interface in October 2013. We followed the standard methods for study selection and data abstraction. When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence by outcome.

resultsWe identified twenty-two eligible studies: Twelve assessed safety-engineered devices for intravenous procedures, five for phlebotomy procedures, and five for both. Twenty-one of those studies were observational while one was a randomized trial. All studies assessed the reduction in NSIs among HCWs. For safety-engineered intravenous devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.28 [0.13, 0.59] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.34 [0.08,1.49] (low quality evidence). For safety-engineered phlebotomy devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.57 [0.38, 0.84] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.53 [0.43,0.65] (moderate quality evidence). We identified no studies assessing the outcome of blood-borne infections among healthcare workers or patients.

conclusionThere is moderate-quality evidence that the use of safety-engineered devices in intravenous injections and infusions, and phlebotomy (blood-drawing) procedures reduces NSI rates of HCWs.

Indexed as

Blood-Borne PathogensEquipment DesignHealth PersonnelHumansInjections, IntramuscularInjections, IntravenousInjections, SubcutaneousNeedlestick InjuriesPhlebotomyProtective DevicesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSafetyBlood-borne pathogensHealthcare settingHealthcare workersIntravenousMeta-analysisNeedle-stick injuriesPhlebotomySafety-engineered devicesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27581947
PMCPMC5007867
OpenAlexW2517886325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.