Observational studyVox sanguinis2021
A survey of laboratory biosafety and protective measures in blood transfusion departments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Observational study in Vox sanguinis, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice and experience in the teaching system of clinical pharmacy laboratory in the post-epidemic era: A review.Medicine · 2022Review
- Resilience and Protection of Health Care and Research Laboratory Workers During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Analysis and Case Study From an Austrian High Security Laboratory.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThousands of healthcare workers (HCWs) have been infected with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Laboratory personnel in blood transfusion departments may be infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) if laboratory biosafety protection is insufficient. Therefore, we investigated the current situation of laboratory biosafety protection in blood transfusion departments to determine how to improve the safety of laboratory processes. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn online survey was conducted in blood transfusion departments from 1st to 6th May 2020 in China. A total of 653 individuals completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed with reference to COVID-19 laboratory biosafety summarized in Annex II. All responses were summarized using only descriptive statistics and expressed as frequencies and ratios [n (%)].
resultsMost participants were concerned about COVID-19. Some participants had inadequate knowledge of COVID-19. Two participants stated that there were laboratory personnel infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their departments. A total of 31 (4.7%) participants did not receive any safety and security training. In terms of laboratory biosafety protection practices, the major challenges were suboptimal laboratory safety practices and insufficient laboratory conditions.
conclusionThe major deficiencies were insufficient security and safety training, and a lack of personal protective equipment, automatic cap removal centrifuges and biosafety cabinets. Consequently, we should enhance the security and safety training of laboratory personnel to improve their laboratory biosafety protection practices and ensure that laboratory conditions are sufficient to improve the safety of laboratory processes.
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.