ArticleEpidemiology and infection2018
Need for improved public health protection of young people wanting body piercing: evidence from a look-back exercise at a piercing and tattooing premises with poor hygiene practices, Wales (UK) 2015.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Tongue Piercings on Oral Health: A Narrative Literature Review.Clinics and practice · 2025Review
- Assessing Undergraduates' Perception of Risks Related to Body Art in Italy: The SUPeRBA Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Effect of chicken raw materials on physicochemical and microbiological properties of mechanically deboned chicken meat.Veterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following a cluster of serious pseudomonas skin infections linked to a body piercing and tattooing premises, a look-back exercise was carried out to offer clients a screen for blood-borne viruses. Of those attending for screening 72% (581/809) had a piercing procedure in the premises of interest: 94 (16%) were under 16 years of age at the time of screening. The most common site of piercing was ear (34%), followed by nose (27%), nipple (21%) and navel (21%). A small number (<5) tested positive for hepatitis B and C, with no evidence this was linked to the premises. However, 36% (211/581) of clients reported a skin infection associated with their piercing. Using data from client forms, 36% provided a false age. Those aged under 16 years (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.7-7.7) and those receiving a piercing at an intimate site (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3-3.6) were more likely to provide a false age. The findings from this exercise were used to support the drafting of the Public Health (Wales) Bill which proposed better regulation of piercing premises and the need to provide proof of being 18 years of age or over before having a piercing of an intimate site.
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.