ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Pattern and serological profile of healthcare workers with needle-stick and sharp injuries: A retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Sharps injuries and splash exposures among healthcare workers in the United Arab Emirates.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Occupational Exposure to Needle Stick and Sharp Injuries and Postexposure Prophylaxis Utilization Among Healthcare Professionals in Southwest Ethiopia.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2025Article
- Situation and associated factors of needle stick and sharps injuries among health-care workers in a tertiary hospital: a cross-sectional survey.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
- Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Workers at a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- Characterization of work-related accidents among professionals in a public university from 2015 to 2019.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMTArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeedle-stick and sharp injuries (NSSIs) are very hazardous to healthcare workers (HCWs) working in any healthcare setting. The burden of NSSIs is more common in developing countries than in developed countries. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted in a multispeciality, tertiary level teaching medical institute. Total 78 NSSIs incidences from 2005 to 2013 were reviewed and included for the study. All the information were retrieved and entered in excel sheet for data analysis.
resultsTotal of 78 NSSIs cases were reported over a period of 9 years. Maximum incidences of NSSI were reported by nurses (61.5%). A higher proportion (41%) of cases occurred in critical units and emergency and the most common procedure (64.1%) was parenteral medication during which HCWs got NSSIs. Almost half (53.8%) of HCWs had received complete HBV vaccination. Out of 78, 40 HCWs only completed follow-up for 6 months and were found non-reactive for viral markers.
conclusionThe healthcare workers who were involved in patient care are at risk to get NSSIs. The primary prevention of NSSIs is very important. Every institute should have policies on ongoing training programme, HBV vaccination protocol, smooth system of NSSIs reporting, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) facilities and follow-up of HCWs with NSSIs to prevent the occurrence.
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.