ArticleTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2023
Eosinophilia attention, diagnosis, treatment, and awareness in physicians: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06265870 (Comparison of Outcome Between Specific Anthelminthic Treatment According to Test Results and Empirical Anthelminthic Treatment in Eosinophilic Patient), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Outcome Between Specific Anthelminthic Treatment According to Test Results and Empirical Anthelminthic Treatment in Eosinophilic Patient
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Retrospective Review of 1821 Cases of Eosinophilia in a Single-Center Study in Eastern China.EJHaem · 2026Article
- Review
- Moderate-High Blood Eosinophilia Is Associated with Increased Hospitalization and Other Asthma Comorbidities.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- The multidisciplinary approach to eosinophilia.Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with incidental eosinophilia is becoming increasingly common in clinical practice. But it remains challenging to diagnose and treat owing to its complex etiology. The awareness of physicians and the strategies of diagnosis and treatment toward eosinophilia are still unclear. Objective: We aimed to evaluate attention, diagnosis, treatment, and awareness of eosinophilia among physicians, as well as factors influencing clinical practice, and to find ways to improve the efficacy of this disease. Design: This is a cross-sectional survey. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from 1 to 4 June 2021 in a tertiary hospital. Self-administered and validated electronic questionnaire was used to investigate the attention toward eosinophilia, the strategies of diagnosis and treatment, and the awareness in physicians. Results: A total of 607 valid questionnaires were collected, with a response rate of 84.5%. Among the responders, 65.4% of physicians claimed to be familiar with patients with eosinophilia but only 11.0% of them had read the relevant guidelines or expert consensus. Among 207 physicians who had ever diagnosed patients with eosinophilia, only 19.4% had performed detailed examinations. The accuracy of awareness questions was 1.6-53.5%, and only 26.5% of physicians had high levels of awareness. An increase in the awareness level of up to 2.82 folds was seen among physicians with factors such as job title, encountering patients with eosinophilia, linking patients' conditions to peripheral blood eosinophil count, and paying attention to guidelines. Conclusion: This study highlighted the importance of raising awareness and knowledge of eosinophilia among physicians in China. More works on education about eosinophilia guideline are needed, which may help physicians make decision with more benefits to patients.
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.