ArticleAsia Pacific allergy2014
Knowledge of anaphylaxis among Emergency Department staff.
Article in Asia Pacific allergy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Awareness of anaphylaxis among public in Al-Ahsa City of Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Healthcare Providers' Perception and Practice Toward Anaphylaxis in Children in the Qassim Region of Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2023Article
- Physicians' knowledge and practice concerning diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis: The situation in Egypt.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2021Article
- A Mixed-Methods Approach-Based Study of Anaphylaxis Awareness and Educational Needs among Nursing Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Preparedness of pre-intern medical graduates of three universities in Sri Lanka to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Physicians' knowledge regarding epinephrine underuse in anaphylaxis.Asia Pacific allergy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnaphylaxis is an emergency condition that requires immediate, accurate diagnosis and appropriate management. However, little is known about the level of knowledge of doctors and nurses treating these patients in the Emergency Department.
objectiveTo determine the knowledge of doctors and nurses in the Emergency Department on the recent definition and treatment recommendations of anaphylaxis.
methodsWe surveyed doctors and nurses of all grades in a tertiary Hospital Emergency Department using a standardized anonymous questionnaire.
resultsWe had a total of 190 respondents-47 doctors and 143 nurses. The response rate was 79.7% for doctors and 75.3% for nurses. Ninety-seven point eight percent of the doctors and 83.7% of the nurses chose the accepted definition of anaphylaxis. High proportions of doctors (89-94%) and nurses (65-72%) diagnose anaphylaxis in the three scenarios demonstrating anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock. Forty-two point six percent of the doctors and 76.9% of the nurses incorrectly diagnosed single organ involvement without hypotension as anaphylaxis. As for treatment, 89.4% of the doctors indicated adrenaline as the drug of choice and 85.1% chose intramuscular route for adrenaline administration. Among the nurses, 40.3% indicated adrenaline as the drug of choice and 47.4% chose the intramuscular route for adrenaline.
conclusionHigh proportion of doctors and nurses are able to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis, although there is a trend towards over diagnosis. There is good knowledge on drug of choice and the accepted route of adrenaline among the doctors. However, knowledge of treatment of anaphylaxis among nurses was moderate and can be improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.