LIST OF SYTEMATIC REVIEWS
According to the methodology of the PEROSH Clearinghouse of Systematic Reviews
|Update 2014 – actual|
(sum of R-AMSTAR scores)**
|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.||42/44||PMID: 24610008|
|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.||43/44||PMID: 24610769|
|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.||42/44||PMID: 22071864|
|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||22/44||PMID: 22007320|
|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.||38/44||PMID: 12137673|
|Selection from 2010|
(according to SIGN: ++/+/-)
|Link or PubMed ID|
|6||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||++||16575737|
|7||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||++||10793285|
|8||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|
** Study grading (according to the adopted R-AMSTAR Checklist for OSH Evidence-Clearinghouse of Systematic Reviews)
R-AMSTAR Maximum quality score sum: 44
* Study grading (according to the adopted SIGN Checklist for PEROSH Clearinghouse of Systematic Reviews):
++ All or most of the criteria have been fulfilled. Where they have not been fulfilled the conclusions of the study or review are thought very unlikely to alter.
+ Some of the criteria have been fulfilled. Those criteria that have not been fulfilled or not adequately described are thought unlikely to alter the conclusions.
– Few or no criteria fulfilled. The conclusions of the study are thought likely or very likely to alter.
For search details see Search documentation form