ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2025
Evaluation of different safety-engineered protection mechanisms of port access needles using a lifelike model of vascular access routes.
Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2025. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preventing needlestick injuries caused by hypodermic needles is crucial for healthcare personnel. In this context, port access needles play an important role. However, systematic comparisons of different safety-engineered port access needles have not been conducted. Therefore, we evaluated differences in product characteristics and user preferences of safety-engineered protection mechanisms of port access needles. Methods: Port puncture was performed using port access needles with four different safety mechanisms: (a) EZ Huber™ PFM Medical, (b) Gripstick® Safety OMT, (c) Gripper Micro® Smiths Medical and (d) pps ct® Vygon. Each needle type was used in three consecutive tries: an uninstructed first handling, after which instructions were given according to operating manual. Subsequently, a first and second trial were conducted. Study endpoints included successful activation, activation time, way of activation (one hand or two hands), correct activation, possible risk of needlestick injury, possibility of deactivation and preferred safety mechanism. Results: Overall, successful activation rate during the second trial was equal for all four devices (100%). Median activation time was (a) 6 s, (b) 3 s, (c) 11 s and (d) 6 s. Single-handed activation during the second trial was (a) 0%, (b) 75%, (c) 1% and (d) 1%. Single-handed activation after further preparation with two hands during the second trial was (a) 0%, (b) 0%, (c) 0% and (d) 50%. Correct activation during the second trial was (a) 97%, (b) 66%, (c) 19% and (d) 44%. Possible risk of needlestick injury during the second trial was highest with (b). Possibility of deactivation was (a) 75%, (b) 94%, (c) 97% and (d) 22%. Individual preferences for each system were (a) Conclusion: We have shown significant differences regarding product characteristics of safety mechanisms of port access needles. Our evaluation approach provides specific data for both, technical (e.g., single-handed activation) and personal device selection criteria (e.g., preference of the safety mechanism).
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.