Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40927141›Full record

ArticleApplied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association2025

Piercing Insights: Uncovering the Gaps in Guidance for Body Jewelry in Biological Laboratories.

Jay Bickell, Devin Boyles, Sharon Altmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jay BickellMRIGlobal, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Devin BoylesMRIGlobal, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3938-8033
Sharon AltmannMRIGlobal, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Body piercings in laboratory environments have received limited attention in biosafety literature despite their increasing prevalence in the workforce. The purpose of this review is to compile and collate the current recommendations, practices, and literature on wearing body piercings in and out of biological laboratories, thereby providing a clearer understanding of the topic, supporting biosafety professionals in developing informed institutional policies, and identifying gaps for future applied biosafety research. Methods: Online literature reviews were performed, encompassing both domestic (U.S.) and international biosafety guidance documents, publicly available domestic institutional biosafety manuals, fomite transmission research, and reports on body piercing and jewelry-related laboratory incidents. Results: Biosafety documents and regulations vary widely, from requiring the removal of all jewelry and other personal effects before entry into laboratories to not addressing the issue at all. Specific guidance for body piercing jewelry was absent, although general statements about nonpiercing jewelry and personal effects such as rings and watches were occasionally present. The primary concerns cited were the potential for jewelry to interfere with personal protective equipment fit or function and challenges regarding personal decontamination. Conclusion: There is a lack of evidence-based policies guiding practices for wearing body piercings (and other personal effects) in and out of laboratories as well as insufficient quantifiable data published that would be needed to inform the development of such policies.

Indexed as

applied biosafetybiosafety gapbody modificationjewelrypiercing

Identifiers

PMID40927141
PMCPMC12415165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.