ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2020
Needlestick injuries: a density-equalizing mapping and socioeconomic analysis of the global research.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2020. 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.
- Sharps injuries among healthcare workers in Liberia and Ghana: a cross-sectional survey.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of health care waste management among Zambian health care workers.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeedlestick injuries have caused a deleterious effect on the physical and mental health of millions of health-care workers over the past decades, being responsible for occupational infections with viruses such as HIV or hepatis C. Despite this heavy burden of disease, no concise studies have been published on the global research landscape so far.
methodsWe used the New Quality and Quantity Indices in Science platform to analyze global NSI research (n = 2987 articles) over the past 115 years using the Web of Science and parameters such as global versus country-specific research activities, semi-qualitative issues, and socioeconomic figures.
resultsDensity-equalizing mapping showed that although a total of n = 106 countries participated in NSI research, large parts of Africa and South America were almost invisible regarding global participation in NSI research. Average citation rate (cr) analysis indicated a high rate for Switzerland (cr = 25.1), Italy (cr = 23.5), and Japan (cr = 19.2). Socioeconomic analysis revealed that the UK had the highest quotient Q
conclusionAlbeit NSI research activity is generally increasing, the growth is asymmetrical from a global viewpoint. International strategies should be followed that put a focus on NSI in non-industrialized areas of the world.
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.