Summary of findings 5. (ITS) Safe intravenous systems compared to regular systems for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel.
| Safe intravenous systems compared to regular systems ITS for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel | |||
| Patient or population: preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Setting: healthcare Intervention: Safe intravenous systems Comparison: regular systems ITS | |||
| Outcomes | Impact | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) |
| Number of reported sharps injuries, level | Study 1: effect size ‐5.20; confidence interval ‐7.98 to ‐2.42. Study 2: effect size ‐1.78; confidence interval ‐3.09 to ‐0.47. | (2 observational studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 3 |
| Number of reported sharps injuries, slope | Study 1: Effect size ‐7.86; confidence interval ‐9.13 to ‐6.59. Study 2: Effect size 0.35; confidence interval ‐0.20 to 0.90. | (2 observational studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 3 4 |
| Interpretation of effect size: small (0‐0.2) medium (0.2‐0.5) large (0.6 and above), a effect size with negative sign implies decrease and positive sign implies increase of effect. | |||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | |||
1 We downgraded the quality of evidence by one level due to risk of bias caused by lacking intervention fidelity (in the second study conventional devices were used during intervention period). 2 We downgraded the quality of evidence by one level due to heterogeneity (I² = 79%). 3 We downgraded the quality of evidence by one level due to imprecision (wide confidence interval). 4 We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels due to heterogeneity (I² = 99%).