ArticleBMC nursing2025
Needle stick injuries among emergency medical services personnel: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and control strategies of blood-borne occupational exposures among healthcare workers in Shaoxing Second Hospital from 2020 to 2025.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- 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
- Article
- A needle-free bubble injector enabling depth-controlled isotropic and anisotropic perforation using electrically induced bubbles and heat generated by electric discharge.Biomedical microdevices · 2026Article
- Characteristics of occupational exposure associated with traditional Chinese medicine-related clinical procedures and comparison with non-TCM clinical practice: a single-center 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEMS personnel, including nurses working in prehospital care, are frontline responders in various emergencies and disaster scenarios. Due to their direct involvement in high-risk procedures such as injections and IV access under dynamic conditions, they are especially vulnerable to NSIs-a major occupational hazard with serious health implications. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of NSIs among EMS personnel and highlight its significance for nursing practice, education, and safety policy.
methodThis study was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines, and its protocol was registered in PROSPERO under the code CRD42024615515. The searches were performed without time restrictions until the end of October 2024 across databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Manual searches were also performed via Google Scholar to ensure comprehensiveness. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis, and the I² index was employed to assess heterogeneity among studies. Data were analyzed using STATA software (version 15).
resultDuring the initial search of the information sources, 239 articles were identified from the reviewed databases. After screening, study selection, and quality assessment, 15 studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis, with 17,547 EMS personnel being analyzed. According to the meta-analysis results, the overall prevalence of NSIs among emergency medical services personnel was reported to be 24.21% (95% CI: 17.31-31.10, I
conclusionGiven the relatively high prevalence of NSIs among EMS personnel and the presence of specific risk factors associated with NSIs in EMS tasks compared to other professions, it is recommended to prioritize targeted training, regular evaluations, and ergonomic interventions to reduce the incidence of NSIs in EMS staff. Key occupational risk factors identified include shift work, high stress levels, fatigue, and exposure to unfamiliar environments. Educational programs, safety-engineered devices, and adherence to infection control protocols were among the most effective interventions noted. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.