ArticleBritish dental journal2018
Use of safety syringes for administration of local anaesthesia among a sample of UK primary care dental professionals.
Article in British dental journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occupational Infections among Dental Health Workers in Germany-14-Year Time Trends.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Cross-sectional survey of a sample of UK primary care dental professionals' experiences of sharps injuries and perception of access to occupational health support.British dental journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Safer sharps devices (SSDs) are commercially available and their use is mandated through UK legislation. Aim: To identify the current usage of SSDs in UK primary care dentistry. Method: A cross-sectional survey was administered to delegates at the 2017 British Dental Association (BDA) Conference and Exhibition in Manchester, and at the 2017 BDA Scottish Conference and Exhibition in Glasgow. The survey covered a range of questions relating to sharps injuries and use of traditional and safety syringes for delivery of local anaesthesia. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 22 (IBM Corp., 2013) and included chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Results: Seven hundred and ninety-six delegates participated, of whom 396 (49.7%) were using safety syringes for delivery of local anaesthesia. Of the 166 participants who had experienced a sharps injury in the past year, 76 (45.8%) worked in facilities that most commonly used SSDs for delivery of local anaesthesia. Conclusion: Our results indicate that a significant number of dental practices in our sample have not adopted SSDs and suggest sharps injuries are still being sustained in some practices using SSDs. Further epidemiological research is required to provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of SSDs and reasons why SSDs have not been fully adopted in UK primary dental care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30468166What 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.