(RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems: Incidences of blood contamination ‐ Passive systems
(RCT) Safe intravenous systems showed no clear difference in incidences of blood contamination ‐ Passive systems compared with regular systems (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
(RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems Incidences of blood contamination ‐ Passive systems · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (RCT) Safe intravenous systems showed no clear difference in incidences of blood contamination ‐ Passive systems compared with regular systems (low certainty). Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.94 [0.5, 1.75] | 2 studies · 528 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.