ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
A study on PEI among private dentists in Mashhad, Iran.
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 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.
- Cell-Free DNA-Based Theranostics for Inflammatory Disorders.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Questionnaire-Based Study on the Prevalence, Awareness, and Preventive Measures of Occupational Hazards Among Dental Professionals.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe aimed to identify the percutaneous exposure incident (PEI) by private dentists in Mashhad, Iran.
methodsSubjects included 199 dentists enrolled in this study. A questionnaire consisting of 11 questions was sent to the dentists for data collection. Information was collected on knowledge about dangers of PEI, a history of needlestick or sharps injuries over the past 12 months, types of devices causing the needlestick or sharps injuries, HBV vaccination, knowledge about PEI protective and therapeutic protocol, and reporting PEI to the specialist. The first ten questions were corrected and each sheet received a score ranging from 0 to 10.
result95 women (47.7%) and 104 men (52.3%) participated in this study aged between 27-72 years old. The findings showed that a total of 132 dentists (66.3%) had experiences with PEI. 45 (22.6%) of them had experiences with PEI in the past year. Files and needles were found to be the most frequent tools causing PEI, each with 29.7% of frequency. 16.6%, 8.6, 5.7, and 9.7% were obtained for dental burs, band, and surgical baled, respectively as other tools responsible for injuries. Results of the question about causes of needlestick injuries showed that personal carelessness is the most frequent reason (53.8%) followed by inappropriate disposal of the needles (7.6%).
conclusionThe personal carelessness and inappropriate disposal of needles were reported as the most common reasons for PEI injuries. It is suggested to educational programs for dentists should focus on preventing the PEI.
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.