ArticleBMC medical education2024
Combatting the occurrence of needle-stick injuries in a medical school: why is it still an issue?
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are Those Who Protect Protected? Occupational Risk Among Medical Students in Romania.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Chiropractic students' views on needle stick injuries and protocols at a South African university.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2025Article
- The Prevalence of HIV Seroconversion in Healthcare Workers Following Sharp Injuries and Exposure to Biofluids.Cureus · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeedle-stick injuries (NSIs) pose a safety risk for healthcare workers with great potential for serious infections. The aim was to determine numbers and causes of NSIs as well as the frequency with which medical students report NSIs in the final stages of study.
methodsAn online questionnaire was developed and made available in January and February 2023 to all undergraduate medical students (n = 423) in the last 1.5 years of their degree course at Würzburg University, Germany.
resultsThe response rate was 19.6% (n = 84). Among respondents, 27.4% (n = 23) reported at least one NSI. Occurrence was particularly frequent in surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, and internal medicine. Assisting with procedures, suturing, and blood sampling were considered high-risk activities. Lack of concentration, distraction, and time pressure played a role in incidents. Respondents did not report 18.8% of NSIs with the main reasons being fear of the consequences, self-assessment of the injury as minor, or the opinion of supervisors that reporting was unnecessary. Students with previous practice on simulators or patients were significantly more likely to suffer NSIs. Instructions from occupational health specialists beforehand correlated with fewer NSIs.
conclusionWe assume that trained students are more experienced in handling invasive procedures, leading to a greater adoption of corresponding activities and thus an increased risk of injuries in absolute numbers. This does not counter the need for didactic interventions prior to workplace-based training to raise awareness of NSI risks. Simultaneously, concepts must be developed and implemented to support reporting and alleviate fears regarding consequences.
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.