Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38748311›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

Epistaxis first-aid: a multi-center knowledge assessment study among medical workers.

Tomer Boldes, Nabil Zahalka, Firas Kassem, Benny Nageris, Leigh J Sowerby, Ameen Biadsee

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Tomer BoldesDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Meir Medical Center, 59 Tchernichovsky St., 4428164, Kfar Saba, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1839-7344
Nabil ZahalkaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Meir Medical Center, 59 Tchernichovsky St., 4428164, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Firas KassemDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Meir Medical Center, 59 Tchernichovsky St., 4428164, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Benny NagerisDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Meir Medical Center, 59 Tchernichovsky St., 4428164, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Leigh J SowerbyDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Western University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5825-2759
Ameen BiadseeDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Meir Medical Center, 59 Tchernichovsky St., 4428164, Kfar Saba, Israel. Aminbi@clalit.org.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3768-6216

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the knowledge and confidence level regarding the basic first-aid for treating epistaxis among medical staff, including nurses and physicians across various medical disciplines. The study focused three aspects of first aid management: location of digital pressure, head position and duration of pressure.

methodsThe study involved 597 participants, categorized into five groups according to their specialties: emergency medicine, internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and community-based healthcare. A paper-based multiple-choice questionnaire assessed knowledge of managing epistaxis. Correct answers were determined from literature review and expert consensus.

resultsMost medical staff showed poor knowledge regarding the preferred site for applying digital pressure in epistaxis management. For head position, pediatricians and internal medicine physicians were most accurate (79.4% and 64.8%, respectively, p < 0.01), and nurses from the emergency department outperformed nurses from other disciplines; internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and community-based healthcare (61.1%, 41.5%, 43.5%, 60%, 45.6%, respectively, p < 0.05). While most medical staff were unfamiliar with the recommended duration for applying pressure on the nose, pediatricians and community clinic physicians were most accurate (47.1% and 46.0%, respectively, p < 0.01), while ER physicians were least accurate (14.9%, p < 0.01). Interestingly, a negative correlation was found between years of work experience and reported confidence level in managing epistaxis.

conclusionsOur findings indicate a significant lack of knowledge concerning epistaxis first-aid among medical staff, particularly physicians in emergency departments. This finding highlights the pressing need for education and training to enhance healthcare workers' knowledge in managing epistaxis.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEpistaxisFirst AidAdultFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesEpistaxisFirst-aidHealth care workersHealth-care workersKnowledge assessmentSurvey studyUrgent care

Identifiers

PMID38748311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.