不同类型安全注射装置针刺伤的多中心研究（翻译有奖）
Needlestick Injury Rates According to Different Types of Safety‐Engineered Devices: Results of a French Multicenter StudyInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:402–407
Objectives.To evaluate the incidence of needlestick injuries (NSIs) among different models of safety‐engineered devices (SEDs) (automatic, semiautomatic, and manually activated safety) in healthcare settings.
Design.This multicenter survey, conducted from January 2005 through December 2006, examined all prospectively documented SED‐related NSIs reported by healthcare workers to their occupational medicine departments. Participating hospitals were asked retrospectively to report the types, brands, and number of SEDs purchased, in order to estimate SED‐specific rates of NSI.
Setting.Sixty‐one hospitals in France.
Results.More than 22 million SEDs were purchased during the study period, and a total of 453 SED‐related NSIs were documented. The mean overall frequency of NSIs was 2.05 injuries per 100,000 SEDs purchased. Device‐specific NSI rates were compared using Poisson approximation. The 95% confidence interval was used to define statistical significance. Passive (fully automatic) devices were associated with the lowest NSI incidence rate. Among active devices, those with a semiautomatic safety feature were significantly more effective than those with a manually activated toppling shield, which in turn were significantly more effective than those with a manually activated sliding shield ( , χ2 test). The same gradient of SED efficacy was observed when the type of healthcare procedure was taken into account.
Conclusions.Passive SEDs are most effective for NSI prevention. Further studies are needed to determine whether their higher cost may be offset by savings related to fewer NSIs and to a reduced need for user training. 不同类型安全注射装置针刺伤的多中心研究：法国的多中心研究结果
医院流行病学感染控制2010; 31:402-407
目的：在医疗环境中不同类型注射装置的安全模式（自动，半自动及手动启动）对针刺伤事件的评估
方法：从2005年1月到2006年12月实施多中心调查，调查了所有已由医护人员向卫生职业部门报告记录的与针刺伤相关的注射装置。参与医院被要求回顾性地报告所购进的注射装置的种类，品牌，数量。以评估装置导致的针刺伤确切的发生率。
背景：法国61家医院
结果： 在研究期间购买了超过2200多万的注射装置，总计记录了453个与针刺伤相关的注射装置。这就意味着购买的注射装置发生针刺伤的总频率为每10万个中就有2.05个。注射装置针刺伤确切的发生率利用泊松近似进行比较，95％的置信区间是用来确定统计学意义的。被动（全自动）装置均与最低的针刺伤的发病率相关，在激活装置中，那些带有半自动的安全特征的注射装置很明显的比那些手动激活推翻盾牌的更有效，相应的也比那些手动激活滑动盾牌的更有效（χ2检验），当这种卫生保健程序被考虑时，就会观察到注射装置效能呈相同的梯度变化曲线。
结论：被动注射装置在预防针刺伤方面是最有效的，需要进一步研究以确定他们较高的成本是否可能抵消较少针刺伤节约的费用以及减少用户培训需要的费用。
有些翻译得比较生硬 请老师指点 The same gradient of SED efficacy was observed when the type of healthcare procedure was taken into account.当重视医疗操作（注射）过程时可以得到同样的安全注射效果？
这一句可能要看一下全文。 本帖最后由 wjllulu 于 2010-4-5 10:53 编辑
回复 3# 潮水
我的理解是，由于各种医疗操作本身的针刺风险度不同，比如.an intramuscular injection 和 an intravenous transfusion 的风险就不一样，从经验和客观数据都显然是后者更大一些。此句可否理解为“在（增加）不同医疗操作（风险权重考虑）中，SED的安全效能（在某一种操作之间或不同操作加权后）也呈相同梯度变化曲线。”
页:
[1]