ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Postexposure prophylaxis for HIV among healthcare workers in Türkiye: a descriptive, multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2026. 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) plays a vital role in preventing transmission among healthcare workers following occupational exposure. Despite its clinical importance, epidemiological data regarding PEP implementation in Türkiye remain scarce. This study aimed to assess PEP practices, prophylactic treatment regimens, and follow-up outcomes among healthcare workers at risk of occupational HIV exposure. Materials and methods: This retrospective, multicenter study was conducted between January 2020 and December 2024 across 16 healthcare facilities participating in the National HIV/AIDS Working Group. Healthcare workers aged 18 years and older who presented for evaluation following occupational exposure to HIV were included. Data on demographics, exposure characteristics, source patient test results, PEP initiation timing, regimen preferences, adverse effects, and follow-up outcomes were collected from hospital records and analyzed using SPSS v25.0. Results: A total of 369 healthcare workers were assessed. The PEP initiation rate was 49.1%. Needlestick injuries accounted for 79.4% of occupational exposures, and nurses constituted nearly half of presentations (49.6%). In univariable analyses, PEP initiation was less frequent among nurses than among other healthcare staff. In the multivariable model, male sex and age ≥40 years were independently associated with higher odds of PEP initiation, whereas the nursing profession was associated with lower odds. The median time to PEP initiation was 17.9 h (range: 0-120). Adverse effects were uncommon (3.5%), most frequently nausea and vomiting. No HIV seroconversions were identified among individuals with available follow-up results; however, follow-up testing at the predefined time points was incomplete, which limits the ability to exclude rare late seroconversions. Conclusion: Timely initiation of HIV PEP appears feasible and well tolerated in real-world occupational settings. These findings highlight the need for standardized institutional protocols and improved follow-up strategies for healthcare workers in Türkiye.
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.