Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings: a systematic review

Search strategy used in Medline. (DOC 29 kb

Safety engineered injection devices for intramuscular, subcutaneous and intradermal injections in healthcare delivery settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Occupational sharps injuries are associated with transmission of bloodborne viruses to healthcare workers, including hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Similarly reuse of syringes in healthcare settings might transmit these infections between patients. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the effects of the use by health care workers of two types of safety engineered injection devices, when delivering intramuscular, subcutaneous, or intradermal injectable medications: sharps injury protection syringes and reuse prevention syringes. METHODS: We included both randomized and non-randomized studies comparing safety syringes to syringes without safety features. Outcomes of interest included needlestick injuries, and HIV, HBV and HCV infections amongst HCWs (for sharps injury prevention syringes) and patients (for reuse prevention syringes). When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We tested results for heterogeneity across studies using the I statistic. We assessed the quality of evidence by outcome using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: We included nine eligible studies: six assessed devices that qualify as sharps injury prevention devices, and three assessed devices that qualify as both injury prevention devices and reuse prevention devices. Eight studies were observational while one was randomized. All studies assessed a single outcome: needle stick injuries among healthcare workers. For sharp injury prevention syringes, the meta-analysis of five studies resulted in a pooled relative risk of 0.54 [0.41, 0.71] for the effect on needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. The associated quality of evidence was rated as moderate. For reuse prevention syringes, data from one study provided a relative risk of 0.40 [0.27, 0.59] for the effect on needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. The associated quality of evidence was rated as moderate. We identified no studies reporting on the effect on the reuse of syringes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified moderate quality evidence that syringes with sharps injury prevention feature reduce the incidence of needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. We identified no studies reporting data for the remaining outcomes of interest for HCWs. Similarly we identified no studies reporting on the effect of syringes with a reuse prevention feature on the reuse of syringes or on the other outcomes of interest for patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12912-015-0119-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The acquisition of needle-stick injuries (NSI) in a healthcare setting poses an occupational hazard of transmitting blood-borne pathogens from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs). The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the efficacy and safety of using safety-engineered intravenous devices and safety-engineered phlebotomy devices by HCWs. Methods: We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing safety-engineered devices to conventional/standard devices that lack safety features for delivering intravenous injections and/or for blood-withdrawal procedures (phlebotomy). The outcomes of interest included NSI rates, and blood-borne infections rates among HCWs and patients. We conducted an extensive literature search strategy using the OVID interface in October 2013. We followed the standard methods for study selection and data abstraction. When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence by outcome. Results: We identified twenty-two eligible studies: Twelve assessed safety-engineered devices for intravenous procedures, five for phlebotomy procedures, and five for both. Twenty-one of those studies were observational while one was a randomized trial. All studies assessed the reduction in NSIs among HCWs. For safety-engineered intravenous devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.28 [0.13, 0.59] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.34 [0.08,1.49] (low quality evidence). For safety-engineered phlebotomy devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.57 [0.38, 0.84] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.53 [0.43,0.65] (moderate quality evidence). We identified no studies assessing the outcome of blood-borne infections among healthcare workers or patients. Conclusion: There is moderate-quality evidence that the use of safety-engineered devices in intravenous injections and infusions, and phlebotomy (blood-drawing) procedures reduces NSI rates of HCWs. © 2016 The Author(s)

Self-medication Practices and Knowledge among Lebanese Population: A Cross-sectional Study

Self-medication (SM), practiced globally, is an important public health problem. This is the first study aiming to determine the prevalence of inappropriate usage of drugs among Lebanese patients, assess their knowledge, and identify predicting factors of potentially inappropriate drug intake. This cross-sectional prospective survey was carried out in five Lebanese governorates. A structured interview was done with patients who visited pharmacies. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A multivariate logistic regression was performed to investigate factors associated with SM, which was reported by 79.1% of 930 interviewed cases. The most common symptoms warranting SM were symptoms relating to ear, nose, and throat diseases (99.0%), gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea and vomiting (75.6%), and cold and flu symptoms (60.1%). Age [adjusted odds ratio (ORa) = 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15–1.80; p = 0.002] and sex (ORa = 1.60; CI, 1.16–2.21; p = 0.004) significantly increased the odds of SM. Medication classes commonly consumed by respondents for SM included acetaminophen-based analgesics (48.7%) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24.6%). Moreover, 83.7% of respondents thought they were knowledgeable about proper dosing of the self-medicated drug (in fact, only 69.0% had adequate knowledge), and 35.5% thought they knew about side effects (assessment showed only 59.5% of them were right). Our study shows that SM is common among Lebanese adults. Hence, reinforcement of laws is necessary to improve access to adequate health care; efforts are needed to increase patients’ education regarding the health risk related to inappropriate consumption of medication

Fragmentation of J/ψ in jets in pp collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV

The fragmentation of jets containing a J/ψ meson is studied in √s = 5.02 TeV pp data using an integrated luminosity of L = 27.39pb^(−1). The fraction of the jet transverse momentum p_(T,jet) carried by the J/ψ is measured for prompt J/ψ and J/ψcoming from b hadron decays, named nonprompt. Whereas the fragmentation function of nonprompt J/ψ is well-modeled by simulations using a Monte Carlo generator, the prompt J/ψ are found to be accompanied by a larger level of jet activity. The fraction of J/ψ mesons that are produced inside a jet is also reported, and found to be larger in data than in simulation, for both prompt and nonprompt J/ψ

Meta-Analyses Proved Inconsistent in How Missing Data Were Handled Across Their Included Primary Trials: A Methodological Survey

Background: How systematic review authors address missing data among eligible primary studies remains uncertain. Objective: To assess whether systematic review authors are consistent in the way they handle missing data, both across trials included in the same meta-analysis, and with their reported methods. Methods: We first identified 100 eligible systematic reviews that included a statistically significant meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome. Then, we successfully retrieved 638 of the 653 trials included in these systematic reviews' meta-analyses. From each trial report, we extracted statistical data used in the analysis of the outcome of interest to compare with the data used in the meta-analysis. First, we used these comparisons to classify the "analytical method actually used" for handling missing data by the systematic review authors for each included trial. Second, we assessed whether systematic reviews explicitly reported their analytical method of handling missing data. Third, we calculated the proportion of systematic reviews that were consistent in their "analytical method actually used" across trials included in the same meta-analysis. Fourth, among systematic reviews that were consistent in the "analytical method actually used" across trials and explicitly reported on a method for handling missing data, we assessed whether the "analytical method actually used" and the reported methods were consistent. Results: We were unable to determine the "analytical method reviews actually used" for handling missing outcome data among 397 trials. Among the remaining 241, systematic review authors most commonly conducted "complete case analysis" (n=128, 53%) or assumed "none of the participants with missing data had the event of interest" (n=58, 24%). Only eight of 100 systematic reviews were consistent in their approach to handling missing data across included trials, but none of these reported methods for handling missing data. Among seven reviews that did explicitly report their analytical method of handling missing data, only one was consistent in their approach across included trials (using complete case analysis), and their approach was inconsistent with their reported methods (assumed all participants with missing data had the event). Conclusion: The majority of systematic review authors were inconsistent in their approach towards reporting and handling missing outcome data across eligible primary trials, and most did not explicitly report their methods to handle missing data. Systematic review authors should clearly identify missing outcome data among their eligible trials, specify an approach for handling missing data in their analyses, and apply their approach consistently across all primary trials

Potential impact of missing outcome data on treatment effects in systematic reviews: imputation study

AbstractObjective To assess the risk of bias associated with missing outcome data in systematic reviews. Design Imputation study. Setting Systematic reviews. Population 100 systematic reviews that included a group level meta-analysis with a statistically significant effect on a patient important dichotomous efficacy outcome. Main outcome measures Median percentage change in the relative effect estimate when applying each of the following assumption (four commonly discussed but implausible assumptions (best case scenario, none had the event, all had the event, and worst case scenario) and four plausible assumptions for missing data based on the informative missingness odds ratio (IMOR) approach (IMOR 1.5 (least stringent), IMOR 2, IMOR 3, IMOR 5 (most stringent)); percentage of meta-analyses that crossed the threshold of the null effect for each method; and percentage of meta-analyses that qualitatively changed direction of effect for each method. Sensitivity analyses based on the eight different methods of handling missing data were conducted. Results 100 systematic reviews with 653 randomised controlled trials were included. When applying the implausible but commonly discussed assumptions, the median change in the relative effect estimate varied from 0% to 30.4%. The percentage of meta-analyses crossing the threshold of the null effect varied from 1% (best case scenario) to 60% (worst case scenario), and 26% changed direction with the worst case scenario. When applying the plausible assumptions, the median percentage change in relative effect estimate varied from 1.4% to 7.0%. The percentage of meta-analyses crossing the threshold of the null effect varied from 6% (IMOR 1.5) to 22% (IMOR 5) of meta-analyses, and 2% changed direction with the most stringent (IMOR 5). Conclusion Even when applying plausible assumptions to the outcomes of participants with definite missing data, the average change in pooled relative effect estimate is substantive, and almost a quarter (22%) of meta-analyses crossed the threshold of the null effect. Systematic review authors should present the potential impact of missing outcome data on their effect estimates and use this to inform their overall GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) ratings of risk of bias and their interpretation of the results

Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews : a protocol for a methodological study

Abstract Background There is no consensus on how authors conducting meta-analysis should deal with trial participants with missing outcome data. The objectives of this study are to assess in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: (1) which categories of trial participants the systematic review authors consider as having missing participant data (MPD), (2) how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials, (3) whether systematic reviewer authors actually dealt with MPD in their meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes consistently with their reported methods, and (4) the impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes. Methods/Design We will conduct a methodological study of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include a group-level meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome, with a statistically significant effect estimate. Teams of two reviewers will determine eligibility and subsequently extract information from each eligible systematic review in duplicate and independently, using standardized, pre-piloted forms. The teams will then use a similar process to extract information from the trials included in the meta-analyses of interest. We will assess first which categories of trial participants the systematic reviewers consider as having MPD. Second, we will assess how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials. Third, we will compare what systematic reviewers report having done, and what they actually did, in dealing with MPD in their meta-analysis. Fourth, we will conduct imputation studies to assess the effects of different methods of dealing with MPD on the pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses. We will specifically calculate for each method (1) the percentage of systematic reviews that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change of effect estimates across systematic reviews. Discussion The impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates will help judge the associated risk of bias in systematic reviews. Our findings will inform recommendations regarding what assumptions for MPD should be used to test the robustness of meta-analytical results