ArticleInfection and drug resistance2024
Assessment of Knowledge and Practice of Healthcare Providers in Saudi Arabia Regarding
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2024. 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.
- Knowledge Assessment of Hospital Nursing Staff in Saudi Arabia RegardingNursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Exploring the Relationship Between Knowledge, Attitudes, Self-Efficacy, and Infection Control Practices Among Saudi Arabian Nurses: A Multi-Center Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Best Practices in the Management ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Diagnosis of Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive, questionnaire-based study was conducted on healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia, primarily physicians and clinical pharmacists. The questionnaire was developed based on a literature review and input from infectious diseases experts. The questionnaire was administered online. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Of 183 respondents, 27.9% had adequate knowledge on CDI diagnosis and management. The majority were internal medicine specialists (37.7%) working in governmental or semi-governmental hospitals (80.9%) in central (46.6%) or southern (30.1%) regions of Saudi Arabia. Most participants assessed laxative use (86.3%) and reported positive Conclusion: The study revealed a significant knowledge gap among Saudi healthcare providers regarding CDI diagnosis, management, and severity classification, highlighting the need for improved education and adherence to guidelines to improve patient outcomes and reduce recurrence risks.
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.