PAR (dB) at short‐term · workers exposed to noise using earplugs
1 finding from 1 review
Proportion of workers who wear HPDs · workers exposed to noise using HPDs
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
PAR (dB) at long‐term · workers exposed to noise using earplugs
1 finding from 1 review
PAR (dB) at immediate · workers exposed to noise using earplugs
1 finding from 1 review
PAR pass rate (%) · workers exposed to noise using earplugs
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Adverse effects · workers exposed to noise using earplugs
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Proportion of workers who wear HPDs · workers exposed to noise using earplugs
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
PAR (dB) ‐ Fit testing of foam earplugs (immediate) · workers exposed to noise using HPDs
1 finding from 1 review
PAR pass rate (%) ‐ Fit testing of foam earplugs (immediate) · workers exposed to noise using HPDs
Effects of extensive instructions probably leads to higher PAR pass rate (%) ‐ Fit testing of foam earplugs (immediate) compared with simple instructions (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects · workers exposed to noise using HPDs
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Sharps injuries, · healthcare workers
It is very uncertain whether educational intervention changes sharps injuries, compared with no intervention (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.68 [0.48, 0.95]
395 participants
Very low
Needle stick injuries · healthcare workers
Educational intervention showed no clear difference in needle stick injuries, questionnaires, 6 mo (RCT) compared with no intervention (low certainty).
4 findings from 1 review
RR 0.53 [0.21, 1.35]
167 participants
Low
RR 0.91 [0.38, 2.2]
529 participants
Low
RR 0.41 [0.14, 1.21]
168 participants
Low
Show 1 more finding
RR 0.46 [0.16, 1.3]
529 participants
Low
Injury rate (ITS), change immediately after intervention, low injury rate · healthcare workers
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
2104 participants
Very low
Injury rate (ITS), change immediately after intervention, high injury rate · healthcare workers
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
255 participants
Very low
Injury rate (ITS), change in trend before and after intervention, low injury rate · healthcare workers
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
2104 participants
Very low
Injury rate (ITS), change in trend before and after intervention, high injury rate · healthcare workers
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
255 participants
Very low
Intervention not reported
1.1 Number of episodes of aggression (CRCT)—short‐term · healthcare workers
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
49 participants
Very low
Intervention not reported
1.2 Number of episodes of aggression (CBA)—short‐term · healthcare workers
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes 1.2 Number of episodes of aggression (CBA)—short‐term (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 2.3 [0.97, 5.42]
155 participants
Very low
Intervention not reported
1.3 Number of episodes of aggression (CBA)—short‐term · healthcare workers
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
23 participants
Very low
Intervention not reported
1.4 Number of episodes of aggression (CRCT)—long‐term · healthcare workers
The intervention showed no clear difference in 1.4 Number of episodes of aggression (CRCT)—long‐term (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.14 [0.95, 1.37]
291 participants
Low