ArticleTurkish thoracic journal2021
The Perspective of the Turkish Thoracic Society Members on Institutional Preparedness During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkey.
Article in Turkish thoracic journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of COVID-19 pandemic management in Türkiye.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the perspective of the Turkish Thoracic Society (TTS) members regarding institutional preparedness, in terms of administrative measures and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), in the first and third months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Turkey. MATERIAL AND
methodsA 22-item online survey was e-mailed between the first and third months to TTS members, and participants' responses were evaluated.
resultsThe number of participants was 295 in the first survey and 141 in the second. In the second survey, the percentage of answers implying availability increased in all 18 control measures, 16 of which were statistically significant. However, there were still less than half of the respondents who reported the availability of psychological and behavioral support and some PPE, including respirators, facial protectors, goggles, and gowns. Statistical significance was observed for provision of a waiting area (P = .008), rooms for aerosol-generating procedures (P = .042), and special wards for patients with suspected or definite COVID-19 (P < .001); testing healthcare workers (HCWs) with a history of contact with a COVID-19 case (P < .001); and surveillance of symptomatic HCWs (P = .048), between tertiary vs. primary and secondary healthcare facilities in the first survey, but provision of special wards (P = .002) and supply for aprons (P = .027) in the second survey.
conclusionOur results showed an improvement in control measures in the third month of the pandemic. However, the persistent low availability of psychological and behavioral support and several items of PPE pointed out the need for action. Considering the health and safety of HCWs, the control measures should be actively monitored and deficiencies eliminated.
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.