ArticleTurk pediatri arsivi2018
Comparison of practical application steps of the previously used adrenaline auto injector in Turkey (EpiPen) and the currently available adrenaline auto injector (Penepin): a multi-center study.
Article in Turk pediatri arsivi, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIt has been shown by a great number of studies that the correct use of adrenaline auto injectors prescribed to patients with anaphylaxis is associated with the design of the auto injector, in addition to training. The aim of this study was to compare the skills of adults in using two different auto injectors prescribed to patients with anaphylaxis. MATERIAL AND
methodsParents of patients aged between 1 and 18 years who referred to allergy outpatients were included in the study.
resultsA total of 630 volunteers from nine centers were included in the study. Four hundred fifty-seven (72.5%) of the participants were females and 235 (37.3%) were undergraduates. The rate of showing all the steps of auto injector trainers correctly by the participants was found as (60.2%) (n=379) for EpiPen and 42.9% (n=270) for Penepin (p<0.001). The most frequent mistake with both auto injector trainers was the step of "place appropriate injection tip into outer thigh/press the trigger so it clicks." When the preferences of the volunteers were asked after training and application, 527 (83.7%) chose EpiPen, stating that it was easier and simpler to use.
conclusionsOur study showed that the correct usage rates of both adrenaline auto injectors were much lower than expected and there could be mistakes in the application of both. It could be appropriate to make improvements in the design of Penepin, which is still the only available adrenaline auto injector in Turkey, such that its application steps will be simpler and quicker.
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.