ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2021
The study of clinical profile and outcome of patients with snakebite in a rural community.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and demographic profiling of snakebite envenomation in a tertiary care centre in northern India.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Clinico-epidemiological profile and outcome of snakebite patients presented to a teaching institute - A descriptive retrospective review.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- A study on the clinical, epidemiological profile and the outcome of the snake bite victims in kashmir valley.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- A retrospective study of the epidemiological and clinical profile of snakebites in an aspirational district of Karnataka.Porto biomedical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextSnakebite remains an underrated cause of accidental death in modern India, primarily in rural India, where people fail to reach out to modern medicine and fall victim to the handful of quacks using traditional healing methods. If promptly diagnosed and treated based on various clinical determinants like mode of presentation, time of medical intervention, recognition of the species, and analysis of a series of reliably identified bites, the treatment outcome would be more promising. We aimed to study snakebite patients' clinical profile and treatment outcome in a rural tertiary care setup. MATERIALS AND
methodThis is a retrospective study in which the data evaluated from an epidemiological viewpoint; gender and age of the snake bite victim, time when bitten, interval between the bite and medical consultation, pattern of toxicity, and response to anti-snake venom (ASV).
resultsOf a total of 200 patients bitten by a snake, 121 were males, with 77% adults. In nearly all cases, the type of snake was unknown; however, most of the bites were poisonous, showing one or the other type of toxicity. One hundred seventy-one patients survived the snake bite, and 29 succumbed. When Logistic regression was done with Death/discharge as the dependent variable and "Time to bite and reaching hospital, Age, Sex, number of ASV given, Ventilation needed or not, pack cell volume (PCV) numbers, Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP) numbers, Dialysis and presence or absence of toxicity" as the independent variables, the model developed did not account for any respectable amount of variation in the outcome. The only variable found to be predicting the outcome significantly was FFP.
conclusionIt is often difficult to identify the type of snake, and thus polyvalent antisnake venom remains the only available treatment resource. Readily available treatment resources, timely intervention, appropriate referral, and close ICU will alleviate mortality.
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.