ArticleBMC anesthesiology2022
The role of anesthesiologists' perceived self-efficacy in anesthesia-related adverse events.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Building ultrasound-guided procedure skills in regional anesthesiology: simulation training with a formalin-embalmed cadaver model.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-efficacy, as the vital determinant of behavior, influencing clinicians' situation awareness, work performance, and medical decision-making, might affect the incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events (ARAEs). This study was employed to evaluate the association between perceived self-efficacy level and ARAEs.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed in the form of an online self-completion questionnaire-based survey. Self-efficacy was evaluated via validated 4-point Likert scales. Internal reliability and validity of both scales were also estimated via Cronbach's alpha and validity analysis. According to the total self-efficacy score, respondents were divided into two groups: normal level group and high level group. Propensity score matching and multivariable logistic regression were employed to identify the relationship between self-efficacy level and ARAEs.
resultsThe response rate of this study was 34%. Of the 1011 qualified respondents, 38% were women. The mean (SD) age was 35.30 (8.19) years. The Cronbach's alpha of self-efficacy was 0.92. The KMO (KMO and Bartlett's test) value of the scale was 0.92. ARAEs occurred in 178 (33.0%) of normal level self-efficacy group and 118 (25.0%) of high level self-efficacy group. Before adjustment, high level self-efficacy was associated with a decreased incidence of ARAEs (RR [relative risk], 0.76; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.62-0.92). After adjustment, high level self-efficacy was also associated with a decreased incidence of ARAEs (aRR [adjusted relative risk], 0.63, 95% CI, 0.51-0.77). In multivariable logistic regression, when other covariates including years of experience, drinking, and the hospital ranking were controlled, self-efficacy level (OR [odds ratio], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = 0.001) was significantly correlated with ARAEs.
conclusionsOur results found a clinically meaningful and statistically significant correlation between self-efficacy and ARAEs. These findings partly support medical educators and governors in enhancing self-efficacy construction in clinical practice and training.
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.