ArticleCureus2024
How Sharp Objects Injuries Impact our Healthcare Workers: Unveiling Perspective and Preventive Imperatives.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology of surgical occupational exposures in an infectious disease hospital: a 5-year retrospective study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Sharp object injuries in the medical field present a considerable occupational hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs), encompassing a spectrum of consequences from immediate discomfort to enduring health consequences. These injuries may expose HCWs to potential infections. Despite efforts to control sharp object injuries in healthcare environments, they are present at every stage involving using or disposing of medical sharp instruments. In Jordan, limited research has focused on sharp object injuries, with most data included from studies concentrating on practicing nurses or nursing students. Consequently, further research is necessary to comprehend the causes behind the high sharp object injury rate and the insufficient knowledge of safety practices and preventive guidelines. Objectives This study was conducted to investigate the impact of sharp object injuries on HCWs, underlying causes, and potential consequences causes of needlestick injuries. To highlight perspective and preventive imperatives. Methods and patients This retrospective institutional-based cross-sectional chart analysis was conducted by reviewing all sharp object injuries report sheets and extracting data directly from these reports for analysis. The study encompassed all reported cases occurring between 2018 and 2023. All the participants' data handling was accomplished according to the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Acts. Results A total of 146 self-reported hospital workers were included in the study. Within the final cohort, 52.73% of the participants were male (77/146), with an average age at diagnosis of 38.6±7.87 years (ranging from 20 to 52 years). Conversely, females comprised 47.27% of the cohort population (69/146) and had an average age at diagnosis of 34.73±6.73 years (ranging from 19 to 47 years). The age group 20-29 years was the most prominent age group, statistical analysis of age and gender data revealed significant differences. The overall prevalence of sharp object injuries was 11.83%, indicating that a sizable portion of HCWs is at risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Among the different professional categories, Physicians constituted the majority of sharp object injuries reported victims in 41 cases (28.08%), followed by nurses in 38 cases (26.02%). Statistical analysis of the profession's data revealed significant differences (
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.