ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2023
Needle-Stick Injuries in Ophthalmic Practice.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2023. 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.
- A comparative study of irrigation techniques and the development of a self-serve training model for ophthalmology residents.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Occupational needle stick injuries in a tertiary ophthalmic care setup: An eastern India perspective.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Analyzing the occupational exposure risks of dental healthcare workers from the perspective of repeated occupational exposure.BMC health services research · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Needle-stick injuries (NSI) are a prominent route by which blood-borne infections are transmitted. The unique microsurgical nature of ophthalmic practice constitutes an additional risk to sustain injury. This study aimed to identify the epidemiological profile of needle-stick injuries in a tertiary eye center and to evaluate the implemented safety policy in preventing sharp injuries. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of all sharp injuries that occurred at King Khalid Eye Specialist Hospital (KKESH). Data on all reported sharp injury incidents from 2013 to 2021 were collected. The mechanisms of injury, context, location, and type of prick were collected and analyzed. Also, this study involved an institution-based survey for all ophthalmic staff. Results: Two hundred and one sharp injury incidents were reported over 9 years. Physicians sustained 46.8% (n=94) of injuries, followed by nurses and ophthalmic technicians, 40.8% (n=82) and 7% (14); respectively. Operating and treatment rooms were the locations of 60.7% of incidents, whereas outpatient clinics and emergency rooms accounted for 19.4% and 13.4% of injuries, respectively. Conclusion: The current findings add to the growing body of literature on the importance of NSI prevention and reporting strategies. In the present study, sharp injuries were most commonly encountered by ophthalmic staff in the operating rooms. Continuous staff education on handling sharp instruments, encouraging anonymous reporting, and up-to-date revisions of guidelines and policies are of paramount importance to lessen the burden of sharp injuries.
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.