ArticleInternational dental journal2022
Identifying Trends of Percutaneous Injuries at an Australian Dental School.
Article in International dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sharps injuries in a dental specialty hospital: retrospective analysis of occupational risks, 2020-2024.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Analyzing the occupational exposure risks of dental healthcare workers from the perspective of repeated occupational exposure.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Bloodborne Infections Relevant to Dental Practice.International dental journal · 2024Review
- Determining the psychometric properties of a written test to assess safe dental practice.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire-Based Survey on Blood-Borne Infection Control among Romanian Dental Students.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to retrospectively examine trends in percutaneous exposure incidences (PEIs) at the School of Dentistry (SoD) from 2009 to 2019 and to report on the underreporting rate of PEIs, current attitudes, and awareness of PEI safety protocols from clinical staff and students at the SoD in 2019.
methodsRetrospective data were collected from deidentified archival incident reports from 2009 to 2019 from the SoD's incident reporting system (UQSafe and Legacy Database). Additionally, cross-sectional data were collected via the validated Percutaneous Exposure Incident Questionnaires (PEIQ) completed by clinical staff and students of the SoD in 2019.
resultsFrom the archival data, the majority (79.9%) of the 618 reported PEIs involved students. Local anaesthetic-related procedures were the most common cause in the archival (31.5%) and survey data (23.7%), whereas the needle-prick was the most common causative instrument in both data sets. Additionally, the finger was the most common site of injury found in the archival (53.0%) and survey data (52.8%). From 345 responses to the survey, 42.1% of PEIs sustained were not reported.
conclusionsStudents were at a higher risk of sustaining a PEI than staff members between 2009 and 2019. The reported knowledge on PEI classification and preventative measures is inadequate, suggesting that further PEI education is necessary. The study provides evidence of the trends in PEIs as well as data on the attitudes and awareness of student and staff at a dental teaching faculty to support the development of PEI safety management protocols.
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.