ArticleBMJ open2020
Needlestick and sharps injuries in an Indonesian tertiary teaching hospital from 2014 to 2017: a cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Prevalence and Associated Factors of Needlestick and Sharp Injuries Among Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care Hospital, Mogadishu, Somalia: A Prospective Single-Center Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Insulin injection knowledge, attitude and behaviour of nurses: A cross-sectional study in Guangdong Province.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Workers at a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- Assessment of Epidemiological Safety in the Cosmetic Service Industry in Poland: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
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 and sharps injuries among healthcare workers (HCWs) pose significant occupational health problems. We aim to provide incidence and other epidemiological aspects of needlestick and sharp injuries (NSSIs) among HCWs in a tertiary teaching hospital in Indonesia, to inform the evaluation of NSSIs prevention programme.
methodsA cohort study was conducted at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital in Jakarta. We analysed data of the sharps injury programme at the hospital between January 2014 and December 2017. Incidence of NSSIs was calculated per 1000 person-years (1000-PY).
resultsOver the 4-year period, a total of 286 NSSIs were reported. The mean NSSIs incidence rate for 4 years was 13.3/1000-PY, peaking in 2015 (15.5/1000-PY) then decreasing afterward. Most NSSIs were experienced by nurses (42.7%), but the highest incidence was among midwives (18.9/1000-PY), followed by nurses, medical students and medical doctors (15.2/1000-PY, 12.6/1000-PY and 11.8/1000-PY, respectively). The devices causing the highest proportion of NSSIs were hollow-bore needles (66.8%), followed by suture needles (14.3%) and solid needles (10.8%). 9.4% of NSSIs were related to insulin pen injection. Of all the incidents, 31.3% occurred during surgical procedures, 25.9% during blood collections, 14.3% during administering injection of drugs and 13.3% during waste cleaning.
conclusionIn conclusion, this study showed varied incidences of NSSI among different occupations, with the highest among midwives and nurses. Many unsafe work practices still continue, which is of utmost concern. We suggest opportunities for prevention including training and cultivating safer workplace practices.
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.