ArticleSouthern African journal of infectious diseases2022
Anaesthetists' knowledge of airborne infections.
Article in Southern African journal of infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anaesthetists need to be knowledgeable regarding the control of airborne infection to ensure safe practice. The aim of this study was to determine anaesthetists' knowledge regarding airborne infections in the perioperative period in the Department of Anaesthesiology at the University of the Witwatersrand. Methods: A cross-sectional research design was followed using an anonymous self-administered questionnaire. Data were collected at academic departmental meetings by convenience sampling. Returning the questionnaire implied consent. A score of 65% was considered adequate knowledge. Results: Of the 150 questionnaires distributed, 137 (91.3%) questionnaires were returned. An overall mean (standard deviation [s.d.]) score of 58.8% (4.252) was achieved, and only 11 (8.1%) of anaesthetists had adequate knowledge. There was no statistically significant association between seniority and passing or failing ( Conclusion: Knowledge of airborne infections in this study was poor, with only 8.1% achieving a pass, and no difference in knowledge between junior and senior anaesthetists was observed. Considering the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at the time of the study, this was a surprising finding. Urgent action needs to be taken to ensure the safety of anaesthetists, other operating theatre staff and patients.
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.