ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Knowledge and awareness of the Saudi general public toward epistaxis: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Epistaxis is one of the most common ear, nose, and throat (ENT) emergencies that present to the emergency or primary care centers. Study aim: This study aimed to assess the knowledge of the Saudi general public toward epistaxis. Methods: This study adopted a cross-sectional analytical study design. The questionnaire link was distributed using social media channels. The participants were adult Saudi nationals that live in Saudi Arabia. The data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire that assessed knowledge related to epistaxis. The knowledge score was calculated using the 10 knowledge evaluation questions. Each correct response was assigned a value of "one." The scores ranged from "zero" to "ten," with higher scores signifying greater knowledge. A percentage score was computed, and the participants' knowledge was classified as poor (% score: ≤50%), moderate (% score: 51 to 70%), and good (% score: 71 to 100%). Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 was used for statistical analysis. Results: The study included 452 participants of whom 70.1% were females. Married individuals comprised 60.8% of the sample. The prevalence of self-reported epistaxis was 43.6% in the last 6 months. Among the participants, 42.9%, had "Poor" knowledge score, followed by 39.6% who had "moderate" score, and 17.5% had "Good" score. These results show that most participants had poor to moderate knowledge, with a minority demonstrating a good level of knowledge. All demographic variables have significantly influenced the adequacy of knowledge about epistaxis. Furthermore, participants who believed that the general public has insufficient knowledge on epistaxis had a significantly lower knowledge score ( Conclusion: The present study found a non-satisfactory, low-to-moderate knowledge level of the Saudi general public toward epistaxis. We propose emphasizing public knowledge and education about first aid for epistaxis because proper first aid can minimize significant complications when done properly.
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.