ArticlePLoS currents2017
Rapid Assessment Zika Virus Knowledge Among Clinical Specialists in Singapore: A Cross-sectional Survey.
Article in PLoS currents, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physician Assistant Students' Knowledge of Zika Virus: A Pilot Study.Infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Knowledge and attitude towards pregnancy-related issues of Zika virus infection among general practitioners in Indonesia.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Zika Outbreak Emergency Preparedness and Response of Malaysian Private Healthcare Professionals: Are They Ready?Microorganisms · 2019Article
- Awareness, Preparedness, and Practices of Hospital Staff During COVID-19 Pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Lessons Learned.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe report the results of a rapid assessment of Zika virus awareness among key clinical specialties in Singapore.
methodsBetween June 6 and June 19, 2016 we conducted an online survey of doctors working in obstetrics and gynaecology, neonatology and paediatrics in Singapore. The survey included 15 multiple choice questions to measure respondents' knowledge of Zika virus in four domains covering clinical and public health.
resultsA total of 110 survey responses (15% response rate) were obtained, 82% of respondents worked in the public sector. Overall, the median respondent score was 9.4 (Max score=15), with substantial variation (range: 3.5 - 14.7). Microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome were recognised as causal complications of Zika virus infection by 99% and 50% of respondents respectively. Clinical features which could help differentiate Zika from Dengue were less well understood with 50% and 68% correctly identifying conjunctivitis and low grade fever respectively. Worryingly, 14% favoured non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as part of treatment, without first excluding dengue as a diagnosis. Also, only 36% of respondents were aware of the current recommendation for preventing sexual transmission of Zika virus. Fewer than 50% were aware of the need for ophthalmological evaluation as part of congenital Zika virus infection. DISCUSSION: Our assessment demonstrates that there is good awareness of the clinical manifestation of Zika virus disease among key specialty doctors, but confusion with Dengue disease remains. It also highlights knowledge gaps in the prevention of sexually-transmitted Zika virus infection and the clinical management of congenital Zika virus infection in newborns. Our study identified strategic areas to improve communication to front-line doctors during public health response to the Zika epidemic.
Identifiers
28736678PMC5501697W2491581478What 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.