ArticleToxicon: X2020
Development and validation of antisnake venom knowledge assessment tool (AKAT) for healthcare practitioners.
Article in Toxicon: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric Properties and Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Towards ChatGPT in Pharmacy Practice and Education: a Study Protocol.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Clinical management of snakebite envenoming: Future perspectives.Toxicon: X · 2021Article
- Snakebite envenoming in different national contexts: Costa Rica, Sri Lanka, and Nigeria.Toxicon: X · 2021Article
- Knowledge assessment of anti-snake venom among healthcare practitioners in northern Nigeria.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
- Preclinical efficacy of African medicinal plants used in the treatment of snakebite envenoming: a systematic review protocol.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antisnake venom (ASV) is the only specific and standard treatment for snakebite envenoming worldwide. The knowledge of antivenom dosage, mode of administration, availability, and logistics is essential to the healthcare practitioners (HCPs) in the management of snakebites. It is vital for the HCPs involved in the handling of ASVs to have its basic knowledge. The ASV contains proteins and can, therefore, easily get denatured if not handled appropriately, leading to poor therapeutic outcome. It is also essential for clinicians to be aware of the tendency of ASV to cause a severe life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction. There is currently no validated tool for assessing the knowledge of ASV among HCPs. Therefore, we developed and validated a tool for evaluating the HCPs knowledge of ASV. The items included in the tool were first generated from a comprehensive literature review. Face validity were conducted by presenting the drafted tool to ten experts on the subject matter. A validation study was conducted among doctors, pharmacists, nurses, pharmacy technicians, and the general public. The objectives of the study were to test the tool for content validity using the content validity index (CVI), construct validity using contrast group approach, difficulty index, readability, and reliability test using the test-retest method. We developed and validated a final tool containing thirty-three items. The tool was valid for face validity and had a scale-level (average) content validity (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.91. The ASV knowledge of pharmacists was higher than that of doctors, pharmacy technicians, nurses, and the general public (
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.