ArticleSpringerPlus2016
A survey on the disposal of blood-contaminated tampon after dental extraction.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dog-assisted therapy in the dental clinic. Part B. Hazards and assessment of potential risks to the health and safety of the dental therapy dog.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis paper was to assess the risk for cross infection caused by blood-contaminated tampon after dental extraction and whether this risk was reduced after relevant education towards both dentists and patients.
methodsFrom December 2014 to April 2015, a survey was conducted in dentists and patients randomly before and after relevant education. The questionnaire is being revised for this survey based on learning from Chatzoudi and Franklin' survey. This survey was approved by the institutional review board, and all participants were voluntary and all responses were anonymous.
resultsOnly 2.82 % of dentists provided patients with the postoperative-advices regarding how to dispose of blood-contaminated tampon at the first time and 47.10 % at the second time (P < 0.01). Only 1.41 % of dentists given special postoperative-advices regarding disposal of tampon to patients with blood-transmitted diseases at the first time and 24.64 % at the second time (P < 0.01). Before education, most patients were lack of nosocomial infection knowledge. After education, 22.4 % of patients threw the blood-contaminated tampon away in a proper way (P < 0.01). 66.67 % of them washed hands immediately and thoroughly after they touched the tampon (P < 0.05), 92.71 % knew the blood-contaminated tampon can cause cross-infection (P < 0.01), and 80.21 % knew how to dispose of the blood-contaminated tampon correctly (P < 0.01).
conclusionThe high risk of cross infection caused by blood-contaminated tampon is evident, and a series of measures is proposed to control it. There is a need to improve both dentists' and patients' awareness, enhance the education of doctors and perfect the policies and guidelines.
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.