Are safety needles safer than traditional needles? [1]

Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

Volumn 98, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 97-

  Sheikh, Javed ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICE; E-MAIL; LETTER; METHODOLOGY; NEEDLE; NEEDLESTICK INJURY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECALL BIAS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; SAFETY NEEDLE;

EID: 33846206003     PISSN: 10811206     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60867-8     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Wolf BL, Marks A, Fahrenholz JM. Accidental needle sticks, the occupational safety and health administration, and the fallacy of public policy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;97: 52-54.
2. Kanter LJ, Siegel C. Needle sticks and adverse outcomes in office-based allergy practices. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2003;90:389-392.
3. Kreiger N, Nishri ED. The effect of non-response on estimation of relative risk in a case-control study. Ann Epidemiol. 1997;7: 194-199.
4. Seltzer CC, Bosse R, Garvey AJ. Mail survey response by smoking status. Am J Epidemiol. 1975;100:453-457.
5. Sheikh K, Mattingly S. Investigating non-response bias in mail surveys. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1981;35:293-296.
6. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley; 1981.