Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32143641›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2020

Evaluation of post-exposure prophylaxis practices to improve the cost-effectiveness of rabies control in human cases potentially exposed to rabies in southern Bhutan.

Kinley Penjor, Nelly Marquetoux, Chendu Dorji, Kinley Penjor, Sithar Dorjee, Chencho Dorjee, P D Jolly, R S Morris, J S McKenzie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kinley PenjorSchool of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand. kinleyp@health.gov.bt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9529-4096
Nelly MarquetouxSchool of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Chendu DorjiSchool of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kinley PenjorSchool of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sithar DorjeeSchool of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Chencho DorjeeFaculty of Nursing and Public Health, Khesar Gyalpo University of Medical Sciences of Bhutan, Thimphu, Bhutan.
P D JollySchool of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.
R S MorrisMorvet Ltd, Consultancy services in health risk management and food safety policy and programs, Masterton, New Zealand.
J S McKenzieSchool of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Massey University · NZMinistry of Agriculture and Forests · BTRoyal Centre for Disease Control · BTKhesar Gyalpo University of Medical Sciences of Bhutan · BT

Funding

European Union One Health Program in Asia EuropeAid/133708/C/ACT/Multi; Contract 29 DCI-ASIE/2013/331-217
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRabies is endemic in southern Bhutan, associated with 1-2 human deaths and high post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) costs annually. Evaluation of clinicians' management of human cases potentially exposed to rabies could contribute to improving PEP prescribing practices to both reduce unnecessary costs associated with PEP and reach the target of zero human deaths due to rabies by 2023.

methodsA cross-sectional survey of 50 clinicians' management of human cases potentially exposed to rabies was conducted in 13 health centers in high-rabies-risk areas of Bhutan during February-March 2016.

resultsData were collected on clinicians' management of 273 human cases potentially exposed to rabies. The 50 clinicians comprised health assistants or clinical officers (55%) and medical doctors (45%) with a respective median of 19, 21 and 2 years' experience. There was poor agreement between clinicians' rabies risk assessment compared with an independent assessment for each case based on criteria in the National Rabies Management Guidelines (NRMG). Of the 194 cases for which clinicians recorded a rabies risk category, only 53% were correctly classified when compared with the NRMG. Clinicians were more likely to underestimate the risk of exposure to rabies and appeared to prescribe PEP independently of their risk classification.. Male health assistants performed the most accurate risk assessments while female health assistants performed the least accurate. Clinicians in Basic Health Units performed less accurate risk assessments compared with those in hospitals.

conclusionsThis study highlights important discrepancies between clinicians' management of human cases potentially exposed to rabies and recommendations in the NRMG. In particular, clinicians were not accurately assessing rabies risk in potentially exposed cases and were not basing their PEP treatment on the basis of their risk assessment. This has significant implications for achieving the national goal of eliminating dog-mediated human rabies by 2030 and may result in unnecessary costs associated with PEP. Recommendations to improve clinician's management of human cases potentially exposed to rabies include: reviewing and updating the NRMG, providing clinicians with regular and appropriately targeted training about rabies risk assessment and PEP prescription, and regularly reviewing clinicians' practices.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsBhutanBites and StingsChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansRabies VaccinesBhutanClinical risk assessmentNeglected diseasesPost-exposure prophylaxisPublic healthRabies

Identifiers

PMID32143641
PMCPMC7060656
OpenAlexW3009799335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.