ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2022
Adherence to safety precautions in the operation theatre among anaesthesiologists in the COVID era.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of personal protective equipment and cognitive load during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A randomized cross-over simulation-based study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Trends in research inIndian journal of anaesthesia · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant infections among healthcare workers and deaths warranting the need for personal protective equipment. This study aimed to estimate the proportion of anaesthesiologists adhering to safety precautions and to evaluate their adherence patterns, difficulties faced and coping mechanisms in the operation theatre during the pandemic. Methods: This was a multicentric mixed methods study conducted among anaesthesiologists from two tertiary care hospitals. A paper-based questionnaire was given to all participants. The first part consisted of 21 questions regarding safety measures and extent of adherence. The second part was a response sheet regarding the various difficulties faced and coping mechanisms adopted. Following this, an in-depth interview was conducted to understand the same. The proportion of anaesthesiologists in different categories of adherence, patterns of adherence, difficulties faced, and coping mechanisms were computed and compared. Thematic framework analysis was done for in-depth interview. Results: Sixty participants were included. The adherence levels for N95 masks and face shields were higher. Most participants practised frequent handwashing and took showers after work. Fogging, difficulty in communication, marks on the face were the commonly faced difficulties. Self reassurance, adjusting the fit of masks/face shields, or taking breaks were the coping mechanisms mostly followed. Themes generated from in-depth interview include waning of caution, adaptation through innovative methods and stress due to uncertainty. Conclusion: The N95 mask was the most preferred safety precaution. Ease of use and safety were important considerations for adherence. Physical and mental acclimatisation and improved knowledge of disease played a vital role.
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.