ArticleDer Anaesthesist2019
[Needlestick injuries of healthcare workers].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2019. 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.
- Combatting the occurrence of needle-stick injuries in a medical school: why is it still an issue?BMC medical education · 2024Article
- [What (general/abdominal) surgeons should know about occupational medicine? : General vaccine recommendations and postexposure prophylaxis of hepatitis B, C and HIV].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022Review
- Occupational Stress and Mental Health among Anesthetists during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Injuries of healthcare workers with sharp instruments are considered among the most frequent occupational accidents in hospitals. In at least half of the cases, the instruments are contaminated with blood and therefore bear an infection risk with bloodborne pathogens, such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Needlestick injuries require besides immediate medical intervention, such as rinsing and disinfection of the wound or skin contamination, a prompt clarification of the immune status and if necessary a postexposure prophylaxis. Furthermore, follow-up examinations are required for up to 6 months after the accident. Information about the infectious state of the index person considerably facilitates the procedure. All healthcare workers should know the management of needlestick injuries. Preventive measures refer to the reduction of the number of needlestick injuries by improving work organization and usage of needle devices with safety features as well as to the reduction of infection risk by hepatitis B vaccination and wearing safety gloves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31218431What 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.