ArticleJournal of athletic training2024
Exertional Heatstroke Survivors' Knowledge and Beliefs About Exertional Heatstroke Diagnosis, Treatment, and Return to Play.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextLittle information exists regarding what exertional heatstroke (EHS) survivors know and believe about EHS best practices. Understanding this would help clinicians focus educational efforts to ensure survival and safe return-to-play following EHS.
objectiveWe sought to better understand what EHS survivors knew about EHS seriousness (eg, lethality and short- and long-term effects), diagnosis and treatment procedures, and recovery.
designMultiyear cross-sectional descriptive design.
settingAn 11.3-km road race located in the Northeastern United States in August 2022 and 2023. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsForty-two of 62 runners with EHS (15 women and 27 men; age = 33 ± 15 years; pretreatment rectal temperature [TREC] = 41.5°C ± 0.9°C).
interventionsMedical professionals evaluated runners requiring medical attention at the finish line. If they observed a TREC of ≥40°C with concomitant central nervous system dysfunction, EHS was diagnosed, and patients were immersed in a 189.3-L tub filled with ice water. Before medical discharge, we asked EHS survivors 15 questions about their experience and knowledge of select EHS best practices. Survey items were piloted and validated by experts and laypersons a priori (content validity index of ≥0.88 for items and scale).
main outcome measuresSurvey responses.
resultsSixty-seven percent (28/42) of patients identified EHS as potentially fatal, and 76% (32/42) indicated that it negatively affected health. Seventy-nine percent (33/42) correctly identified TREC as the best temperature site to diagnose EHS. Most patients (74%, 31/42) anticipated returning to normal exercise within 1 week after EHS; 69% (29/42) stated that EHS would not impact future race participation. Patients (69%, 29/42) indicated that it was important to tell their primary care physician about their EHS.
conclusionsOur patients were knowledgeable on the potential seriousness and adverse health effects of EHS and the necessity of TREC for diagnosis. However, educational efforts should be directed toward helping patients understand safe recovery and return-to-play timelines following EHS.
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.