ArticleCureus2022
Awareness, Concerns, and Protection Strategies Against Blood-Borne Viruses Among Emergency Medicine Staff.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 0 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
Objectives The present study aimed to evaluate the awareness and measures taken to prevent infections of blood-borne pathogens (BBPs) among emergency department (ED) staff at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. Method A cross-sectional research approach was adopted. The study recruited a sample of 200 ED medical staff from King Abdul Aziz Medical City in Riyadh city. A self-filled questionnaire was used to elicit data related to awareness and concerns, in addition to the protection strategies adopted by the ED medical staff. The gathered data was analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS, v. 26). Results The study found that 42.5% (n=85) of the emergency room (ER) staff did not use regular eyewear at all, 30% (n=60) did not use face shields at all, and about 75.5% of the enrolled ED staff successfully converted to double-gloving. In addition, it was found that patients with active AIDS (64%), patients with active hepatitis (60.5%), and patients with known HIV infection (60%) were the most reported factors influencing the decision to use double-gloving. Moreover, it was found that the highest reported reasons for not double-gloving were that double-gloving is not necessary (56%, n=112) and double-gloving decreases hand sensation (31%, n=62).Finally, the study found that the most reported reasons for not using barriers other than gloves precautions were non-necessity of barriers other than gloves (31% (n=62) and non-availability (26.5%, n=53). Conclusion The study concluded that ER medical staff in King Abdul-Aziz Medical City in Riyadh perceived a high level of lifetime risk of infection when performing procedures and that there is a lack of education and awareness of ER staff related to using personal protective equipment (PPE) and double-gloving when performing procedures in the ER.
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.