Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41438837›Full record

ReviewGMS hygiene and infection control2025

Risk of hepatitis C transmission by healthcare workers - a systematic review.

Roland Diel, Albert Nienhaus

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in GMS hygiene and infection control, 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

2 authors.

Roland DielInstitute of Epidemiology, University Medical Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Albert NienhausInstitution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services (BGW), Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Occupational acquisition of hepatitis C virus (HCV) among healthcare workers (HCWs) has markedly declined in high-income countries, largely due to improved infection control measures and safety-engineered devices. However, the risk of HCV transmission from HCWs to patients remains insufficiently characterized. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting serological evidence of HCV transmission from infected HCWs to patients. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for publications up to July 2025. Results: Of 192 studies identified, 24 from eight countries met inclusion criteria. In total, 27 HCWs were implicated as potential sources, and 54,622 patients were tested for HCV RNA. Seventy-six transmissions were confirmed by RNA sequencing; 369 were classified as probable and 15 as possible. Direct provider-to-patient transmission was documented in 18 studies, 12 of which involved exposure-prone procedures (EPP), yielding a mean transmission rate of 0.47% (62/13,224; 95% CI 0.036-0.061%). Viral load data were reported for only eight transmitting HCWs, all with ≥2×10 Conclusions: Evidence on HCW-to-patient HCV transmission remains limited and provides only weak guidance for national prevention policies. Indirect transmission through unsafe practices by opioid diversion has emerged as the predominant pathway, underscoring the need for real-time monitoring, tamper-resistant systems, and strict adherence to infection prevention measures in healthcare settings.

Indexed as

exposure prone proceduresguidelineshealth care workershepatitis Cinfectivityopioid diversionprofessional-to-patienttransmission

Identifiers

PMID41438837
PMCPMC12720405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.