Commentary

What a wonderful example of evidence-based nursing in action! This study by Diggle and Deeks was done in response to requests from nurses in the UK for evidence on which to base immunisation practice. It is the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate the relation between needle length and local reactions when immunising infants. Ipp et al assessed the effects of both injection site and needle length on adverse reactions to diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and polio vaccination in 18 month old infants.¹ Although this was not a randomised trial, their finding that injection into the thigh with a longer needle was associated with less redness and swelling supports the findings of Diggle and Deeks.

This trial was done in several general practices in the UK, which increases the generalisability of the findings. Potential biases were avoided by concealing patient allocation to treatment groups in sequentially numbered, opaque envelopes and by keeping parents, who recorded the outcomes, blind to which needle length was used to vaccinate their child. The study could have been strengthened by standardised assessment of outcome by the same individual for all infants and by consideration in the analyses of other factors that might have influenced local reactions such as percentage of body fat.

This study has clinical relevance for practitioners responsible for vaccinating infants. Both redness and swelling were significantly reduced when using the longer needle. The differences suggest that, for every 3–5 infants vaccinated with the longer rather than the shorter needle, 1 case of redness and 1 case of swelling would be prevented. In a time when the public has limited knowledge of the risks associated with contracting an infectious disease, minimising the adverse events accompanying infant vaccination could enhance public acceptance of immunisation.