Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27582628›Full record

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).

D Sossai, M Di Guardo, R Foscoli, R Pezzi, A Polimeni, L Ruzza, M Miele, L Ottaggio, V Fontana, F Copello and 12 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D SossaiPrevention and Protection Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy;
M Di GuardoPrevention and Protection Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy;
R FoscoliPrevention and Protection Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy;
R PezziEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical Trials Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy;
A PolimeniPrevention and Protection Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy;
L RuzzaPrevention and Protection Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy;
M MieleMutagenesis Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy.
L OttaggioMutagenesis Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy.
V FontanaEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical Trials Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST Genoa, Italy;
F CopelloOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
P DellacàOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
M DoriaOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
A OnestiOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
G MontecuccoOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
F RissoOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
M NelliOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
I BenvenutiOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
M SantacroceOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
L GiribaldiOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
G PicelliOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
S SimoniniOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
P VenturiniOccupational Needlestick Injuries Study Group.
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health PersonnelProtective DevicesHumansItalyNeedlestick InjuriesHealthcare workersNeedlestick injuriesSafety catheter device

Identifiers

PMID27582628
PMCPMC4996039
OpenAlexW2502065840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.