ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2020
Lack of awareness among surgeons regarding safe use of electrosurgery. A cross sectional survey of surgeons in Pakistan.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Acupuncture Physicians and Medical Students Regarding Bloodborne Occupational Exposure: A Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Thermal effects of monopolar electrosurgery detected by real-time infrared thermography: an experimental appendectomy study.BMC surgery · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess our surgeons perceptive regarding the safe usage of electrosurgical devices.
methodology: This cross sectional survey was carried out at two hospitals, A cancer hospital and a public sector general hospital. Consultants, fellows and senior residents (Resident year 3rd and year 4th) on the surgical floor were requested to fill up the questionnaire. Calculations were performed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 20) for Windows version 20 statistical software. Data was described using median with minimum and maximum value for quantitative variables. For categorical variables, number of observations and percentages were reported. The study is complied with hospital guidelines on research involving human subjects.
resultsOut of 80 questionnaires 52 were filled and returned. 12 consultants, 16 fellows/Senior registrars and 24 senior residents filled their questionnaires. For the sake of anonymity no information was obtained regarding the level of training and experience. Total 12 questions were asked. An expert level was set for a score above 10/12. A moderate level was set at 8/12. A score of less than 8 was considered unsafe for using electrosurgical devices. Only 6 (11.5%) participants had an expert level of understanding. 16 (30.7%) had moderate understanding. 30 (57.7%) were considered unsafe regarding use of electrosurgical devices. 85% participants were not aware of the correct mode of current to use for coagulating vessels. 69% of surgeons would use electrocautery to control staple line bleeds. 67% participants weren't aware of the correct placement of dispersive electrode. 60% couldn't identify a safe device for use in patients with a pacemaker. 46% of surgeons would cut a dispersive electrode to fit it on a child. 69% believed that harmonic scalpel was a bipolar cautery. 61% couldn't differentiate between RFA and Microwave Ablation. 63% didn't know how to handle an operating room fire.
conclusionIn these two hospitals, high level of ignorance noticed regarding the procedure and indications of basic electrosurgical equipment which needs raising awareness and further training.
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.