Effectiveness of measures to prevent needlestick injuries among ...

Annex 3: Definitions/guidelines for reviewing articles
c) Any obvious bias in data collection methods (y/n): Was injury reporting active
or passive (voluntary)? Was there likely to be pressure on the participants to
over or under report?
6) Duration of intervention and follow-up
a) For all designs, duration of intervention is interval in which new
equipment/procedure was in use
b) Duration of follow-up
i) Concurrent comparison – follow-up is the same as intervention interval,
since intervention and control groups are observed for the same amount of
time.
ii) Cross-over: duration of follow-up is sum of intervention and non-
intervention periods.
iii) For pre/post design, follow-up is pre plus post
iv) For external comparison and for ecological studies, duration of follow-up is
the time during which injury data were collected in the study population.
7) Study characteristics
a) Target population, intervention predetermined − Can only be true when the
study was planned before the interventions were implemented.
b) Measures of successful program pre-determined − The author described what
results should be attained in order to deem the study a success (e. g. overall
reduction in NSI). If a quantitative estimate was provided (as would be used for
a power calculation), please make a note on the form.
c) Pre-testing of new tools means some staff were involved in selecting the devices
prior to their general introduction or implementation of intervention
d) Passive surveillance requires voluntary reporting of events (injuries), e. g. using
injury report forms.
Report „Needlestick injuries“ 112