ReviewJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene2016
Efficacy of safety catheter devices in the prevention of occupational needlestick injuries: applied research in the Liguria Region (Italy).
Review in Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare workers who use or may be exposed to needles are at risk of needlestick injuries, which can lead to serious infections by bloodborne pathogens. These injuries can be avoided by eliminating the unnecessary use of needles and using safety devices. The present study was aimed at evaluating the impact of a safety-engineered device, with passive fully automatic needlestick protection, on the rate of needlestick injuries among healthcare workers. The setting of the study was a network of five public healthcare institutions situated in a Northern Italian Region. Data on the type of device, the number of employees and the number of catheter devices used per year were collected through regular meetings with healthcare workers over a period of five years. The most notable result of this study was the huge risk reduction associated with safety devices. Indeed, the risk of needlestick injuries due to conventional devices was found to be 25-fold higher than that observed for safety devices. However, it is noteworthy that a considerable part of this excess can be explained by the different background number of devices used. Moreover, descriptive analysis suggested that individuals with a poor/moderate training level had a lower risk than those with good/high training, though the difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, there is convincing evidence of a causal connection between the introduction of safety devices and the reduction in needlestick injuries. This consideration should prompt the introduction of safety devices into daily clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27582628PMC4996039W2502065840What 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.