ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of knowledge and attitude concerning augmented renal clearance among physicians and clinical pharmacists in Al-Ain, UAE: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKidney function assessment is crucial in critical illness patients and is required before administering renally excreted medication, especially antibiotics and antiepileptics. Conventional clinical practice often focuses on renal impairment with low creatinine clearance (CrCl) and overlooks the augmented renal clearance (ARC), which is defined by (CrCl) more than 130 ml/min. This typical demonstration neglects individuals who experience hyperfunctioning kidneys. Among critically ill patients, the prevalence of (ARC) is approximately 20% to 65% of cases. This study aims to evaluate physicians' and clinical pharmacists' knowledge about ARC-associated risk factors, antibiotic regimen modification in ARC patients, and attitudes towards ARC workshops and guidelines in Al-Ain, UAE.
methodsA cross-sectional, online self-administered survey-based study was designed to achieve this study's aim. The questionnaire was constructed on profound literature analysis, validated, and piloted. The survey was emailed to physicians and pharmacists working in two hospitals, private and governmental, and distributed through different social media platforms over three months, December 2022-February 2023.
resultsOf the 92 complete responses (32 clinical pharmacists, 60 physicians), 57 (61.9%), were aware of ARC, but 72 (78%) demonstrated poor knowledge overall. Clinical pharmacists had a higher mean rank of knowledge than the physician's group. Meanwhile, 70 (76.1%) participants were unaware of the eGFR threshold to determine ARC. There is a noticeable positive attitude toward seeking more information about antibiotic dose adjustment in ARC patients at 85 (92%) of the respondents. Remarkably, only 28 (30.4%) were directly involved with ARC patients' treatment plans.
conclusionIn conclusion, clinical pharmacists showed better knowledge than physicians. However, overall, the participating healthcare providers lacked knowledge about ARC, so a reliable source of information regarding ARC should be utilized. Future research could explore the implementation of professional development workshops for healthcare providers and national guidelines and then assess their impact on patient outcomes.
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.