ArticleCureus2024
Family Presence During Resuscitation: Perspectives of Saudi Emergency Medicine Providers.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
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
Background Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) has been a long-debated topic in medical circles in the last 40 years. Studies usually concentrate on the opinions and responses of the family members of the patients being resuscitated. Only a handful of studies have focussed on the medical practitioner's opinions and beliefs on the topic. Hence, this study aimed to investigate opinions and beliefs regarding FPDR among emergency medicine practitioners (EMPs) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methodology This was a self-filled, questionnaire-based study conducted among 450 EMPs across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Proportions and subgroup analyses were conducted with respect to gender, experience, and seniority. EMPs were asked about the number of family members they would allow to attend the resuscitation of a patient under their care in different clinical scenarios. Results A total of 392 (87.1%) EMPs participated in this study. Overall, 64% (n = 250) of EMPs reported that they would not allow FPDR in cases that involved trauma, or if the patient being revived was female. This percentage dropped to about 33% (n = 129) when the patient being resuscitated was a child or in out-of-hospital arrest. The majority of EMPs believed that the decision to allow FPDR was the physician's decision (n = 251, 64.8%) and not the right of the family (n = 133, 34.7%). Moreover, emergency medicine board-certified physicians were more likely to allow FPDR in different cases with 19 (18.5%) in adult arrest cases, 18 (18%) in pediatric cases, and 16 (15.1%) in trauma cases, than non-board-certified practitioners (p = 0.001, 0.007, and 0.031, respectively). Female EMPs were more likely to refuse FPDR than their male counterparts (p < 0.001). Conclusions Approximately, 60-70% of EMPs allowed a member of the family to attend the resuscitation of their loved one. However, this percentage dropped in cases where the patient was a female, or the case was a trauma case instead of a medical case. Most Saudi EMPs believed that FPDR hurts the resuscitating team and might hinder the resuscitation efforts.
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.