We read with interest the report by Makwana and Riordan on community needlestick injuries in children.¹ We do not believe, however, that the authors have presented sufficient data to support their conclusion that routine follow up after community needlestick injury is unnecessary.

In their study only 25 children had complete serological follow up. Their literature review cites three additional papers in which children were followed up after needlestick injury. Adding all of these children gives a total of 138 children who had serological testing following needlestick injury. This is an insufficient number to allow one to …