Efficacy of warm compresses in preserving perineal integrity and decreasing pain during normal labor: A systematic review and meta-Analysis.

The objective of the study was to assess the effect of warm compresses in preserving perineal integrity in women who delivered a single baby vaginally with cephalic presentation. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the ISI Web of Science databases. Two researchers worked independently and conducted the study's search, selection, and extraction. We calculated the pooled risk ratio (R.R.)- for our categorical outcomes- and mean difference (M.D.)-for our continuous outcomes- using random or fixed-effect meta-analysis according to heterogenicity status. I2 test was used to detect heterogenicity. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Our study analyzed 13 controlled trials (n= 3947) to compare warm compresses versus not using it during vaginal delivery. The analysis revealed that warm compresses group had better outcomes regarding episiotomy, degree of perineal trauma (third and fourth degree), perineal trauma requiring suturing, and also in behavioral pain scales (severe muscle tense, being very restless, and constant grimacing) with the following R.R. and confidence intervals: (R.R.= 0.56, 95% C.I.[0.23, 1.37]), (R.R.= 0.69, 95% C.I.[0.54, 0.89], p= 0.004),( (R.R.= 0.37, 95% C.I.[0.18, 0.77], p= 0.004), and ( (R.R.= 0.42, 95% C.I.[0.23, 0.78], p= 0.006) respectively. We conclude that among primiparous women, warm compresses group showed better outcome in improving perineal comfort than a the good of women who did not receive warm compresses after delivery.

Global prevalence of needle stick injuries among nurses: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nurses usually provide direct patient care. However, they account for the majority of healthcare workers (HCWs) injured by needles or other sharp objects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of needle stick injuries (NSI) among nurses worldwide; according to WHO regions, the socioeconomic development index (SDI) of countries, and the developmental status of individual countries, and in the Middle East. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We calculated the pooled NSI prevalence estimates using a random-effect meta-analysis with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. The report of the study was in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. RESULTS: The overall worldwide NSI prevalence pooled from our analysis was 40.97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31.29-50.63%, p = .00001). A subgroup analysis of NSI prevalence according to WHO regions revealed the highest prevalence in Southeast Asia (49.9%, 95% CI: [23.4-76.3%]) and the lowest in the United States of America (25.1%, 95% CI: [18.1-32.1%]), respectively. The pooled prevalence in developed and developing countries was 30.5% (95% CI: 27.3-33.8%) and 46.6% (95% CI: 33.7-59.5%), respectively. According to the SDI, NSI prevalence was highest in low-middle SDI countries (48.9% [95% CI: 30.7-67.2%]). CONCLUSION: Our results showed a high NSI prevalence among nurses worldwide. Developing countries had a significantly higher NSI prevalence than developed countries, especially low-middle SDI countries. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study highlighted the prevalence of NSI risk among nurses practising in clinical settings worldwide. The study findings suggest that continuous training programs should be implemented for nurses to enhance their knowledge, performance and attitude toward NSI prevention in clinical settings. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Contributions from patients or the public are irrelevant because the purpose of this study was to examine the global prevalence of NSIs in nurses.