ArticleCureus2025
Improving Knowledge of Needle-Stick Injury Prevention: A Two-Cycle Clinical Audit From Sudan.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Needle-stick injuries (NSIs) remain a major occupational hazard for healthcare workers, exposing them to blood-borne infections. Globally recognized occupational health standards emphasize structured training, safe sharps handling practices, and timely access to post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). This audit evaluated staff knowledge and awareness of NSI prevention and management in a Sudanese teaching hospital, aiming to identify gaps and assess the impact of targeted interventions. Methods A two-cycle clinical audit was conducted over twelve months (September 2024-August 2025) at Bashair University Hospital. A structured, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to doctors, nurses, and laboratory technicians in both cycles (n = 90 per cycle). The tool assessed knowledge of NSI risk pathogens, immediate first-aid response, PEP initiation, sharps disposal practices, vaccination awareness, and reporting procedures. Interventions included structured teaching sessions, posters, departmental reinforcement, and distribution of guideline summaries. Data were analyzed descriptively and compared between cycles. Results Knowledge of HBV as the most common pathogen improved substantially among doctors (15.8%→81.2%), nurses (15.8%→100%), and technicians (65%→100%). Awareness of immediate wound washing also improved, reaching 100% among nurses and technicians. Understanding of PEP as medication increased markedly (doctors: 52.6%→93.8%; nurses: 52.6%→100%; technicians: 25%→100%). However, awareness of formal reporting systems declined sharply among doctors (89.5%→12.5%) and technicians (50%→5%). Participation in refresher training fell across groups, while perceived training adequacy showed only partial improvement. Conclusion Targeted interventions improved healthcare workers' knowledge of NSI prevention and management; however, persistent gaps in training sustainability and reporting culture indicate that these gains may not be maintained without continued institutional support. Sustained improvement requires structured refresher programs, robust reporting systems, and administrative commitment to embedding sharps safety into routine practice.
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.