ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2022
Impact of a digital manual for guidance on malignant hyperthermia: patient education.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming clinical trials in rare genetic diseases through telemedicine.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- National insights on malignant hyperthermia: a SIAARTI survey on clinical practices, preparedness, and future directions.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Article
- Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalignant hyperthermia (MH) is a rare, hereditary disease with a hypermetabolic response to volatile anesthetics/succinylcholine. Susceptible patients face difficulties due to a lack of knowledge about MH. As informational materials could increase knowledge and adherence to prevention/therapy, digital information about rare diseases validated for patients is needed. Our objective was to evaluate the following: (1) the impact of digital manuals on the knowledge/quality of life of MH patients and (2) access to MH services. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty MH-susceptible patients filled out a virtual questionnaire twice (demographic/economic/clinical data, MH knowledge and impact on daily life, and SF-36 quality of life). Test groups 1 (n = 17) and 2 (n = 16) were evaluated 30 and 180 days after receiving a digital manual, and the control group (n = 17; without manual) was evaluated after 180 days. We collected the MH service data about the number of contacts.
resultsTwenty-four (48%) patients reported problems in personal/professional life, sports, clinical/surgical/dental treatments, and military service, in addition to concerns about emergency care and complaints of sequelae. The percentage of correct answers in the second MH knowledge questionnaire increased for test group 2 (62% vs. 74.1%; unpaired t test, p < 0.01), was significantly greater in test groups 1 (68.1%) and 2 (74.1%) than in the control group (56.5%; Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05), and correlated with more time studying the manual and reports of MH-related problems (multiple regression, p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe digital manual improved patients' MH knowledge. Online contacts with the MH service increased, allowing greater information dissemination. As informational materials could increase knowledge/adherence to prevention/therapy, digital information about MH validated for patients should be implemented.
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.