ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020
Cross-sectional study assessing the risk of needlestick injury from an insulin pen among nursing care providers.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNeedlestick injuries caused by insulin pen injection are a serious occupational hazard for health care workers in China. We evaluated the prevalence of stick injuries with insulin pen injection and identified associated risk factors.
methodsThis cross-sectional survey was conducted from 1 October to 30 November 2018 in two tier three hospitals in Chongqing, China. Self-administered questionnaires were developed by the Chinese Nursing Association Diabetes Care Special Committee. We analyzed associations between potential risk factors and injuries at different operational steps.
resultsA total 233 of 302 (77%) participants (mean age 28.5±5.3 years) reported a needlestick incident. Most respondents (49%) had 3 to 10 years' working experience and had received injection safety training. Most needlestick injuries occurred while recapping needles after injection. The risk of injury was significantly associated with department and job position. The injury rate increased with increased number of years worked. Respondents with ≥10 years working experience reported the highest needle-capping injury rate (88%): odds ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 3.69.
conclusionRecapping needles after injection showed the highest risk for stick injury with an insulin pen. Nurses in the surgery department and those with longer work histories were more likely to be injured.
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.