Observational studyDer Unfallchirurg2020
[High-risk needlestick injuries and virus transmission : A prospective observational study].
Observational study in Der Unfallchirurg, 2020. 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.
- Solid organ transplantation in people with HIV: Outcomes, obstacles and opportunities.HIV medicine · 2025Review
- Basic knowledge among GP trainees regarding HIV pre- and post-exposition-prophylaxis.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
- Occurrence of Needlestick Injury Among the Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care Center in Western Rajasthan, India.Indian journal of occupational and environmental medicineArticle
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
backgroundNeedlestick injuries (NSI) of healthcare personnel (HCP) are work-related accidents with a risk of transmission of blood-borne human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and C viruses (HBV, HCV). Along with preventive measures to avoid accidental NSI, preventing the risk and diagnosis of an infection from NSI are given a high priority. Thus, follow-up monitoring of NSI is of great interest.
objectiveEvaluation of the follow-up monitoring after NSI with respect to early recognition of transmission of HIV, HCV and HBV as well as adherence and psychological burden of HCP.
methodsClinical and serological investigations of the injured HCP including determining the individual risk of infection in the situation of NSI, analysis of accident protocols by the accident insurance consultant and use of a self-developed standardized questionnaire.
resultsNo virus transmissions from NSI were found during the observation period (23 March 2014 until 31 October 2017). A total of 112 NSI with infectious index patients (HIV 35.7%, HCV 54.5%, HBV 2.7%, coinfection 7.1%) and 3 incidents from unknown index patients were analyzed. Of the index patients six received the first diagnosis of a blood-borne infection (2 HCV infections, 4 HIV infections) after NSI. In nearly all incidents (98.3%) the HCP took measures to disinfect and flush the injury and 85.1% of the HCP exposed to HIV or unknown infection risk undertook postexposure prophylaxis (HIV-PEP) within 2 h and another 12.8% within 10 h. Follow-up examination was attended by 97.4% of the HCP, three quarters of the HCP felt concerned following NSI and 12.2% were very concerned.
conclusionThrough adequate management and follow-up of NSI low transmission rates can be achieved after exposure to blood-borne viruses within the occupational environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31243487What 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.