ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2015
Use of Succinylcholine by Anaesthetists in Turkey: A National Survey.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough succinylcholine (SCh) has side effects, it is among the most commonly used muscle relaxants for rapid induction because of the faster onset of its effects and short effect duration. However, there is no information regarding the frequency of use of SCh by anaesthetists in Turkey. This study aims to investigate the use of SCh by anaesthetists working in Turkey.
methodsA web-based survey form was sent by e-mail to anaesthetists working in Turkey. The form comprised a total of 24 questions.
resultsE-mails were sent to a total of 1882 addresses at two separate times. E-mail replies were received from 433 (23%) anaesthetists. Based on those who responded to the survey, 54.27% anaesthetists routinely used SCh for adult elective cases, 29.33% for paediatric elective cases and 74.13% for emergency cases. In adult elective cases, SCh was most frequently chosen for caesarean section (20.5%), and in paediatric elective and emergency cases, SCh was chosen most frequently because difficult intubation was expected (31.3 and 21.4%, respectively).
conclusionOur study reveals that SCh is still widely used by anaesthetists in Turkey. Majority of physicians who participated our survey were aware of the side effects; however, they reported using SCh in certain special situations. It is evident that creation of a standard care guide for departments is essential. The first stage of creating a standard care guide is to analyse and document the current application. With this aim, more wide-ranging advanced studies should be completed.
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.