Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33995385›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2021

Snakebite Envenoming Diagnosis and Diagnostics.

Cecilie Knudsen, Jonas A Jürgensen, Sofie Føns, Aleksander M Haack, Rasmus U W Friis, Søren H Dam, Sean P Bush, Julian White, Andreas H Laustsen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Vipera Snakebite in Children: A Focus on Europe.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Cecilie KnudsenDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Jonas A JürgensenDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Sofie FønsDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Aleksander M HaackDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Rasmus U W FriisDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Søren H DamDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Sean P BushDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Julian WhiteToxinology Department, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Andreas H LaustsenDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Technical University of Denmark · DKWomen's and Children's Hospital · AUYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Snakebite envenoming is predominantly an occupational disease of the rural tropics, causing death or permanent disability to hundreds of thousands of victims annually. The diagnosis of snakebite envenoming is commonly based on a combination of patient history and a syndromic approach. However, the availability of auxiliary diagnostic tests at the disposal of the clinicians vary from country to country, and the level of experience within snakebite diagnosis and intervention may be quite different for clinicians from different hospitals. As such, achieving timely diagnosis, and thus treatment, is a challenge faced by treating personnel around the globe. For years, much effort has gone into developing novel diagnostics to support diagnosis of snakebite victims, especially in rural areas of the tropics. Gaining access to affordable and rapid diagnostics could potentially facilitate more favorable patient outcomes due to early and appropriate treatment. This review aims to highlight regional differences in epidemiology and clinical snakebite management on a global scale, including an overview of the past and ongoing research efforts within snakebite diagnostics. Finally, the review is rounded off with a discussion on design considerations and potential benefits of novel snakebite diagnostics.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntiveninsEarly DiagnosisHealth Services AccessibilityHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRural PopulationSnake BitesSnakesTropical ClimateAntiveninsclinical toxinologydiagnosisdiagnosticsenvenomingophidismsnakebite managementsyndromic approach

Identifiers

PMID33995385
PMCPMC8113877
OpenAlexW3159384885

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.