Abstract
<h3>To the Editor.</h3> ——The article by Wong et al<sup>1</sup>documents reductions in occupational exposures to blood and body fluids among physicians after the implementation of universal precautions (UPs). However, the investigators have misinterpreted their data relating to needlestick injuries. Although they found a 62% reduction in needlestick injuries when UPs were in effect, their data show that this difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i>=.123, Mantel-Haenszel X<sup>2</sup>). This is not surprising in view of the small number of needlestick injuries reported during the study. Despite a lack of statistical significance, the investigators inappropriately concluded that "the implementation of UPs should reduce the risk of occupational human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection by the same rate [as needlesticks] (62%)...." Based on the study data alone, the correct conclusion is that the implementation of UPs should<i>not</i>be expected to reduce either needlestick injuries or the risk of HIV infection associated
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.