OSH Evidence Clearinghouse of Systematic Reviews Search Documentation Form Collected systematic reviews for the topic: How can needlestick injuries in health workers be prevented? Update 2014 - actual Reference 1 Lavoie MC, Verbeek JH, Pahwa M. Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD009740. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009740.pub2. 2 Mischke C, Verbeek JH, Saarto A, Lavoie MC, PahwaM, Ijaz S. Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD009573. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009573.pub2. 3 Parantainen A, Verbeek JH, Lavoie MC, Pahwa M. Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD009170. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009170.pub2. 4 Yang L, Mullan B. Reducing needle stick injuries in healthcare occupations: an integrative review of the literature. ISRN Nurs. 2011;2011:315432. doi: 10.5402/2011/315432 5 Tanner J, Parkinson H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003087. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003087.pub2. Selection from 2010 Study Grading (sum of R- AMSTAR scores) 42/44 43/44 42/44 22/44 38/44 PubMed link PMID: 24610008 PMID: 24610769 PMID: 22071864 PMID: 22007320 PMID: 12137673 Reference 1 Tuma S, Sepkowitz KA. Efficacy of safety-engineered device implementation in the prevention of percutaneous injuries: a review of published studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Apr 15;42(8):1159-70. Epub 2006 Mar 15 Study Grading PubMed link (SIGN) ++ PMID: 16575737
2 Rogers B, Goodno L. Evaluation of interventions to prevent needlestick injuries in health care occupations. Am J Prev Med. 2000 May;18(4 Suppl):90-8 ++ PMID: 10793285 3 Sulsky SI, Birk T, Cohen LC, Luippold RS, Heidenreich MJ, Nunes A. Effectiveness of measures to prevent needlestick injuries among employees in health professions Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften (HVBG) (ed) 2006 ++ Sulsky Name: Annette Nold Institute/Organisation: Occupational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Social Accident Insurance Address and email: Alte Heerstraße 111, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Email: annette.nold@dguv.de Note: First searches were done in 2010 using the quality assessment method of SIGN. Update searches in 2014 used the AMSTAR methodology. New systematic reviews from new automatic searches are added using the search strategy described below. 2
1. Objective: Collecting systematic reviews on the prevention of needlestick injuries in health care workers 2. Question: How can needlestick injuries in health workers be prevented? Question according to PICO = Population, Intervention (exposures), Comparison (control) and Outcome) Population: Intervention/Exposure: Comparison: Outcome: health care workers prevention measures against needlestick injuries no injuries needlestick injuries 3. Searched Databases: Searches 2010: Database Time span Date searched Citations in Database Duplications Medline (PubMed) 2000 to 2010 2010-11-17 73 EMBASE 2000 to 2010 2010-11-18 135 (3 duplicates) ZIGUV 2000 to 2010 2010-11-17 3 NIOSHTIC 2 2000 to 2010 2010-11-19 14 CISDOC 2000 to 2010 2010-11-19 17 Cochrane 2000 to 2010 2010-11-19 4 Hand check: IWH, Canada 2000 to 2010 2010-11-19 0 FIOH OSH Cochrane 2000 to 2010 2010-11-19 0 Total 243 3
Update searches 2014: Database Time span Date searched Citations in Database Medline (PubMed) 2009 to 2014 2014-9-2 83 EMBASE 2010 to 2014 2014-9-29 42 12 OSH Cochrane 2014-10-28 3 2 Hand search 2014-10-15 1 Total 115 Duplications 4. Search Strategy: 4.1. Searches in 2010: MEDLINE via PubMed, searched 2010-11-17 (AN) 1 Limits: Humans, Publication Date from 2000/12/31 to 2010/11/17 2 Needlestick Injuries [MESH] 940 3 occupation* OR worker* 88551 4 (meta-analysis as topic[mh] OR meta-analysis[pt] OR meta-analysis[tiab] OR 764065 review[pt] OR review[tiab]) 5 (letter[pt] OR editorial[pt] OR comment[pt]) 412016 6 #4 not #5 746539 7 #2 AND #3 AND #6 73 Embase via DIMDI searched 2010-11-18 (AN) 1 bas EM00 8167299 2 Py=2000 603339 2 f ct=(occupation?;work?) OR EC=035 260846 3 f 2 and py>=2000 259167 4 f ct= meta-analysis or search or dt=review 1042602 5 f 4 and py>=2000 1035675 6 f ct=needlestick injury 1920 7 f 6 and py>=2000 1906 8 f3 and 5 and 7 137 4
NIOSHTIC2 via Internet searched 2010-11-19 (AN) 1 (sharp*[all Fields] OR needlestick* [All Fields]) AND review [All Fields] 14 CISDOC via Internet searched 2010-11-19 (AN) 1 sharp* and review 17 2 needle* and review 13 COCHRANE via Internet searched 2010-11-19 (AN) 1 Needlestick injuries (MESH) 4 4.2. Update-Searches in 2014: MEDLINE via PubMed, searched 2014-9-2 (AN) 1 Needlestick Injuries 3300 2 (meta-analysis as topic[mh] OR meta-analysis[pt] OR meta-analysis[tiab] OR review[pt] OR review[tiab]) 2339718 3 (letter[pt] OR editorial[pt] OR comment[pt]) 1343817 4 #1 AND #2 363 5 #4 NOT #3 359 6 #5 AND ("2009/01/01"[Date - Publication] : "3000"[Date - Publication]) 83 Search string: Search: (((needlestick injuries) AND (meta-analysis as topic[mh] OR meta-analysis[pt] OR meta-analysis[tiab] OR review[pt] OR review[tiab])) NOT (letter[pt] OR editorial[pt] OR comment[pt])) AND ("2009/01/01"[Date - Publication] : "3000"[Date - Publication]) EMBASE via DIMDI, searched 2014-9-29 (BGJ, AN) 1 EM05 2 ct=(occupation?;work?) or ec=035 320388 3 ct=meta-analysis or search or dt=review 1059781 4 ct=needlestick injury 1780 5 2 AND 3 AND 4 107 6 5 and py>=2010 42 5
COCHRANE OSH via Internet searched 2014-10-15 (AN) 1 Needle 2 2 Glov 1 4.3. Automatic e-mail updates since August 2014 Searches in MEDLINE with the search strings above were saved. Pubmed delivers new results automatically. New systematic reviews delivered are continuously evaluated and graded referring to AMSTAR and added to the overview list of systematic reviews. 5. Selection process: Inclusion criteria: a. According to PICO- question (see 2.) b. According to inclusion criteria for systematic reviews (see PEROSH OSH Evidence Inclusion and classification criteria for Occupational Health Reviews) c. According to inclusion criteria for Occupational Health and Safety topics (see PEROSH OSH Evidence Inclusion and classification Criteria for Occupational Health Reviews) Selection: First step: Based on titles and abstract, two reviewers select the retrieved articles independently resolving discrepancies by discussions. Second step: Based on the pre-selected full texts, two reviewers apply the above mentioned inclusion criteria independently resolving discrepancies by discussions or by consensus conference. 6
6. Results: (Adapted from PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram) 6.1. Results from searches in 2010: 7
6.2. Results from update searches in 2014: Included Eligibility Screening Identification Records identified through databases. (n =129) Removed duplicates (n =14) Records screened (titles/abstracts) (n =115) Full-text articles screened for eligibility (n =10) Studies included in qualitative synthesis (n = 5) Additional records identified through other sources (e.g. hand searching) (n =1) Records excluded (n =105) Full-text articles excluded with the following reasons: Language Duplications Full texts not available Other reasons (e.g. wrong PICO, did not fulfil the PEROSH criteria, narrative reviews that did not make a systematic search) (n =5) 8
7. Grading of the Systematic Reviews: (Based on the R-AMSTAR Checklist) Results from search in 2014: Quality validation of the studies included, two reviewers apply the AMSTAR-R criteria independently resolving discrepancies by discussions or by consensus conference. No 1 st author / Publication year Overall study assessment (sum of quality scores) Internal validity 1. Lavoie 2014 42/44 Comments: 3 E: Hand or manual search missing. 4 C: No translation of non-english studies or training of readers. 10 B-C: Test on publications not done due to low number of studies. So o.k. 2. Mischke 2014 43/44 Comments: 3 E: No hand or manual search. 4 C: No translation of non-english studies or training of readers. 8 D: Conclusions done, but not referring to practice guidelines. 3. Parantainen 2011 42/44 Comments: 3 E: No manual search of studies. 4 C: No translation of English studies or training of readers 8 D: No clear recommendations for practice. 10 C: No statistical test on publication bias. 4. Yang 2011 22/44 Comments: 1 C: No study protocol was published in advance. 2 A-C: There is no comment on who extracted data, how extraction was done and how disagreement was solved. 3 A-E: There were comprehensive searches done, but searches in Cochrane, supplementary searches and hand searches are missing. 4 A-D: Only peer reviewed journals were searched, so report could be missing. Non-English studies were excluded. 5 A-D: List and reasons for excluded studies missing. The procedure of exclusion is not so clear. 6 B: Much descriptive work, included studies could be better summarized and presented. The ranges of characteristics of studies not clear. 7 D: Quality of evidence not ranked and just roughly described. 8 B-D: No clear conclusions and no recommendations for guidelines. 9 A-D: Missing clear description and test for homogeneity of study results. 10 A-C: Missing comments and tests on publication bias. 11 A-C: No statement on funding and conflict of interest. 5. Tanner 2006 (update 2009) 38/44 Comments: 1 A: Two objectives make it harder, but acceptable in this context. 2 A-C: Data extraction was done by just one person, the other person just checked for accuracy. 4 C: No comment on translation of non-english papers. 7 C: Risk of bias for each included study not comprehensively described. 8 D: No clear recommendation. 10 B-C: No tests on publication bias. 9
Results from search in 2010: Quality validation of the studies was done with the SIGN methodology. No I st author / Publication year Overall study assessment (++/+/-) Internal validity 1. Tuma 2006 ++ 1.1 well covered, 1.2 adequately addressed, 1.3 adequately addressed, 1.4 well covered, 1.5 well covered Comments: Just safety devices are considered, but those in detail 2. Sulsky 2006 ++ 1.1 well covered, 1.2 well covered, 1.3 adequately addressed, 1.4 well covered, 1.5 well covered Comments: Review had 3 questions; search in EMBASE missing 3. Rogers 2000 ++ 1.1 well covered, 1.2 adequately addressed, 1.3 well covered, 1.4 adequately addressed, 1.5 adequately addressed Comments: Methods are described shortly. Consent for use of personal data x I hereby authorize the PEROSH OSH Evidence Group to publish my personal data, as specified in this Search Documentation Form, on the PEROSH website including its database of Systematic Reviews of Occupational Safety and Health. I am aware that my authorized personal data can be consulted by anyone having access to the website using the Internet or any other dedicated network. 10