ArticleMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022
A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire-Based Survey on Blood-Borne Infection Control among Romanian Dental Students.
Article in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond the Needle: Knowledge of Blood-Borne Infection Transmission and Prevention Among Dental Students-A Cross-Sectional Study.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Self-reported knowledge attitude and practice of healthcare professionals in the management of infection and antimicrobial stewardship: a systematic review.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Review
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Dental Students from Romania Regarding Self-Perceived Risk and Prevention of Infectious Diseases.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: According to the CDC estimates, 5.6 million healthcare workers worldwide are exposed to the risk of occupationally contracting blood-borne pathogens, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and others. The aim of the present study was to assess the knowledge level on blood-borne infection control (IC) among Romanian undergraduate dental students. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey with 21 items was conducted from May 2022 to June 2022. The study had α = 0.620 and Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.660. The Chi-square test was used for data comparison. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 26 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), and p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The study sample included 207 subjects with a mean age of 21.38 (±1.9) years, 59.9% F (female), 40.1% M (male), 38.2% students from year II and 61.8% from year III. Most of the subjects did not have knowledge on the indirect mode of IC, the persistence of HBV, HCV, or HIV, or the existence of rapid tests (p < 0.05). PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) was known as follows: HBV, 32.36% (67); HCV, 25.60% (53); and HIV, 36.71% (76); p < 0.05. Only 50.24% (104) had knowledge on the recommended testing moments (p = 0.019 by gender, p = 0.752 by year of study). The optimal time to access PEP was considered by 28.01% (58), p ˃ 0.05. Only 37.68% (78) strongly agreed that the one-hand covering technique of the needle was efficient in IC (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The evaluation of the knowledge regarding IC highlighted major gaps in the perception of the subjects, which underlined the need to implement sustained forms of continuing medical education on this topic.
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.