Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36705119›Full record

ArticleJNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association2022

Secondary Prevention of Rheumatic Heart Disease in Nepal: Are We Going Backward?

Prakash Raj Regmi, Mandip Dhungel, Riju Kafle

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Prakash Raj RegmiNepal Heart Foundation, Pulchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Mandip DhungelHAMS Hospital, Mandikhatar Road, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Riju KafleNepal Heart Foundation, Pulchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A secondary level of prophylaxis has proven to be the most successful in Nepal, a country with an endemic rate of rheumatic heart disease, in combating the severe issues associated with rheumatic heart disease. The use of benzathine penicillin G in secondary prophylaxis of rheumatic heart disease, recommended by several guidelines, has been increasingly abandoned in Nepal due to a lack of national guidelines and the termination of the prior programs. The use of oral penicillin and alternative oral antibiotics, which are less effective in preventing the recurrence of acute rheumatic fever, is on the rise. Nepal urgently needs to develop new national guidelines and ensure their effective implementation in order to slow the increase in the number of rheumatic heart disease patients. In this article, we explore the limitations, challenges, and advantages of using the consensus-supported intramuscular benzathine penicillin G as the first-line drug for the secondary prevention of rheumatic heart disease.

Indexed as

Rheumatic FeverRheumatic Heart DiseaseAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansNepalPenicillin G BenzathineSecondary PreventionAnti-Bacterial AgentsPenicillin G Benzathinebenzathine penicillin; rheumatic heart disease; secondary prevention.

Identifiers

PMID36705119
PMCPMC9794947
OpenAlexW4294253188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.