Cochrane · systematic review · CD009740
Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Reddy, VK, Lavoie, MC, Verbeek, JH, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
WorkAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
29
current version
GRADE rated
29
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 22 · 75.9%Low 6 · 20.7%Moderate 1 · 3.4%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
(RCT) Safe blood collection systems compared to regular systems for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (RCTs)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Needlestick injuries immediate (RCT) Safe blood collection systems vs regular systems | RR 0.2 [0.01, 4.15] | 1 study · 550 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Blood splashes (RCT) Safe blood collection systems vs regular systems | RR 0.14 [0.02, 1.15] | 1 study · 550 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
(ITS) Safe blood collection systems compared to regular systems for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (ITS)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of reported sharps injuries, level ‐ reported seperately for needle sheath and cap shield studies (ITS) Safe blood collection systems vs regular systems | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of reported sharps injuries, slope ‐ reported seperately for needle sheath and cap shield studies (ITS) Safe blood collection systems vs regular systems | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
(RCT) Safe intravenous systems compared to regular systems for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Needlestick injuries (RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems | Rate ratio 0.62 [0.27, 1.41] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidences of blood contamination ‐ Active systems (RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems | RR 1.6 [1.08, 2.36] | 4 studies · 961 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidences of blood contamination ‐ Passive systems (RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems | RR 0.94 [0.5, 1.75] | 2 studies · 528 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of blood leakage ‐ Active systems (RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems | RR 0.21 [0.11, 0.37] | 1 study · 147 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
(CBA) Safe intravenous systems compared to regular systems for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of needlestick injuries (CBA) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems | Rate ratio 0.06 [0, 1.09] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
(ITS) Safe intravenous systems compared to regular systems for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of reported sharps injuries, level (ITS) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of reported sharps injuries, slope (ITS) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
(RCT) Safe injection systems compared to regular systems RCT for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Questionnaire reported Needlestick injuries 6 mo (RCT) Safe injection systems vs regular systems RCT | RR 0.42 [0.14, 1.25] | 1 study · 154 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Questionnaire reported Needlestick injuries 12 mo (RCT) Safe injection systems vs regular systems RCT | OR 0.2 [0.04, 0.96] | 1 study · 144 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Hospital reported Needlestick injuries 6 mo (RCT) Safe injection systems vs regular systems RCT | OR 1.2 [0.51, 2.84] | 1 study · 533 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Hospital reported Needlestick injuries 12 mo (RCT) Safe injection systems vs regular systems RCT | OR 0.72 [0.28, 1.81] | 1 study · 533 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
(CBA) Safe injection systems compared to regular systems for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Needlestick injury rate (CBA) Safe injection systems vs regular systems | Rate ratio 0.34 [0.04, 3.28] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
(ITS) Safe passive injection systems compared to safe active injection systems for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change in level of needlestick injuries (ITS) Safe passive injection systems vs safe active injection systems | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Change in slope of needlestick injuries (ITS) Safe passive injection systems vs safe active injection systems | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
(ITS) Multiple safe devices compared to regular devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of reported sharps injuries, level (ITS) Multiple safe devices vs regular devices | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of reported sharps injuries, slope (ITS) Multiple safe devices vs regular devices | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
(CBA) Multiple safe devices compared to regular devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Needle stick injuries (CBA) Multiple safe devices vs regular devices | Rate ratio 0.11 [0.01, 0.81] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
(ITS) Sharps containers compared to no containers for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of reported sharps injuries, level (ITS) Sharps containers vs no containers | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of reported sharps injuries, slope (ITS) Sharps containers vs no containers | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
(CBA) Sharps containers compared to no containers for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of needlestick injuries (CBA) Sharps containers vs no containers | Rate ratio 0.88 [0.78, 0.99] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of container related needlestick injuries (CBA) Sharps containers vs no containers | Rate ratio 0.22 [0.11, 0.41] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
(ITS) Legislation compared to no legislation for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
Population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
NSI‐ change in level ‐ Interruption (ITS) Legislation vs no legislation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
NSI‐ change in level ‐ Gradual introduction (ITS) Legislation vs no legislation | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
NSI‐ Change in slope ‐ Interruption (ITS) Legislation vs no legislation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
NSI‐ Change in slope ‐ Gradual introduction (ITS) Legislation vs no legislation | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |