Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36757933›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2023

Assessing knowledge and awareness regarding snakebite and management of snakebite envenoming in healthcare workers and the general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Afsana Afroz, Bodrun Naher Siddiquea, Aishwarya Narendra Shetty, Timothy N W Jackson, Andrew D Watt

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Toxins · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Afsana AfrozAustralian Venom Research Unit, Department of Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7309-5280
Bodrun Naher SiddiqueaDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Aishwarya Narendra ShettyDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Timothy N W JacksonAustralian Venom Research Unit, Department of Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Andrew D WattAustralian Venom Research Unit, Department of Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSnakebite envenoming is a serious and life-threatening medical condition that predominantly affects people living in rural communities across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As our climate changes, there is a growing concern that negative human-snake interactions will increase. Our ability to prevent and manage snakebite requires effective antivenoms as well as knowledge regarding the prevention and management of snakebite among healthcare workers and affected communities across the globe. This systematic review aims to assess existing levels of knowledge regarding snakebite prevention and management in both healthcare workers and affected communities.

methodsThis review was conducted on studies reporting quantitative measurements to evaluate knowledge and practice regarding snakebite prevention and management published in major databases between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2021. Random effects modelling was used to obtain the pooled proportion. Heterogeneity (I2) was tested, and sensitivity analyses performed.

resultsOut of 3,697 records, 16 studies from 12 countries assessing 7,640 participants were included. Four of the studies were ranked as good quality studies, 9 as fair, and 3 as poor. This study results demonstrated that 56% of the study population answered the knowledge question correctly (95% CI 48% to 63%, p < 0.001). High heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 97.29%), with marginal publication bias (Egger's regression test, p = 0.0814). Participants had relatively higher knowledge concerning use of antivenom as preferred treatment, followed by snakebite prevention, knowledge of signs and symptoms of snakebite, knowledge of first-aid, and knowledge of treatment. Participants had lower knowledge relating to types of snakes and the identification of snakes.

conclusionAdequate knowledge about snakebites and its management among the general population and healthcare workers was 56%. Healthcare workers and communities across Asia showed higher relative knowledge compared to those in Africa and the Middle East. These data suggest that further education is needed in both the general population and among healthcare workers to ensure that appropriate preventative and patient management techniques are being utilised in snakebite endemic regions. Greater local awareness of the risks and appropriate management of snakebite is required to reduce the burden of snakebite mortality and morbidity.

Indexed as

Snake BitesAfricaAnimalsAntiveninsHealth PersonnelHumansSnakesAntivenins

Identifiers

PMID36757933
PMCPMC9910687
OpenAlexW4319655800

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.