ArticleBMC nursing2024
Prevalence of needle-stick injury in Iranian nurses: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Investigation Into the Impact of Using SafePad on the Incidence Rate of Needlestick Injuries Among Iranian Nurses: A Pre- and Post-Test Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Relationships between shift work, mental workload, and needlestick injuries among nurses.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Occupational Exposure Incidents Among Nursing Students: Knowledge, Experience, and Reporting Practices-A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Prevalence of needlestick injuries among nurses and nursing students in Pakistan: a meta-analysis of observational studies.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of Plan-Do-Check-Act approach in improving the safe injection practice among healthcare workers in a secondary-level healthcare facility - A pre- and post-study design.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of needle-stick injury among Iranian nurses.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of needle-stick injury among Iranian nurses. A comprehensive search of Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Scientific Information Database, and MagIran was performed, yielding 29 observational articles comprising 8842 nurses. The studies ranged from 2006 to 2023, with sample sizes varying from 68 to 1555 individuals. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. The pooled prevalence was calculated using the random-effects model, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on hospital type and gender. The data was analyzed using Stata software version 16.
resultsThe pooled prevalence of needle-stick injury among Iranian nurses was found to be 46% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 39-53%). Subgroup analysis revealed significant difference in prevalence between teaching hospitals (47%; 95% CI: 39-54%) and military hospitals (38%; 95% CI: 31.1-44%). The prevalence of NSI in region 1 (Tehran and surrounding provinces) and other regions was 45.1% (95% CI: 37-54%) and 49.17% (95% CI: 36.5-61.7%). Gender-based analysis showed higher prevalence in women (58%; 95% CI: 44-71%) compared to men (55%; 95% CI: 43-66%).
conclusionNeedle stick injuries has a high prevalence among Iranian nurses, especially nurses working in teaching hospitals. Therefore, it seems necessary to use interventions to reduce it.
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.