Summary of findings 6. (RCT) Safe injection systems compared to regular systems RCT for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel.
| Safe injection systems compared to regular systems RCT 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: hospital Intervention: Safe injection systems Comparison: regular systems RCT | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with regular systems RCT | Risk with Safe injection systems | |||||
| Questionnaire reported Needlestick injuries 6 mo follow up | Study population | RR 0.42 (0.14 to 1.25) | 154 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | ||
| 140 per 1 000 | 59 per 1 000 (20 to 174) | |||||
| Questionnaire reported Needlestick injuries 12 mo follow up | Study population | OR 0.20 (0.04 to 0.96) | 144 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | ||
| 119 per 1 000 | 26 per 1 000 (5 to 115) | |||||
| Hospital reported Needlestick injuries 6 mo follow up | Study population | OR 1.20 (0.51 to 2.84) | 533 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | ||
| 38 per 1 000 | 45 per 1 000 (20 to 100) | |||||
| Hospital reported Needlestick injuries 12 mo follow up | Study population | OR 0.72 (0.28 to 1.81) | 533 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | ||
| 41 per 1 000 | 30 per 1 000 (12 to 72) | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| 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 two levels due to risk of bias (high attrition). 2 We downgraded the quality of evidence by one level due to imprecision (wide confidence interval).