ArticlePeerJ2024
Health perceptions of patients with forgotten double-J stent.
Article in PeerJ, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: In this article, we aimed to determine the health perceptions of the patients who did not apply for double-J stent (DJS) removal on time and evaluate whether health perceptions impact this behavior. Materials and Methods: Health perceptions of 22 patients who were treated for forgotten double-J stent (FDJS) between January 2017-October 2020 and 25 patients who applied for DJS removal during the given appointment time in the urology department of Elazig Training and Research Hospital and Elazig Fethi Sekin City Hospital were compared using the "Health Perception Scale". Results: Health perception scale scores in the FDJS group and control group were 62-68 (mean = 64.27 ± 1.75) and 63-68 (mean = 65.36 ± 1.55), respectively. With regard to the sub-factors of the scale, control center scores were 21.86 ± 0.77 and 22.08 ± 1.15; precision scores were 16.54 ± 0.80 and 16.56 ± 0.82; importance of health scores were 12.77 ± 0, 92 and 13.32 ± 0.74; and self-awareness points were 13.04 ± 0.72 and 13.48 ± 0.58, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the health perception scale in total, importance of health, and self-awareness scores between the two groups. At the same time, there was no difference in terms of the control center and precision scores ( Conclusion: Patients' and their families' educational status, income levels and lack of follow-up by healthcare professionals play an important role in forgotten DJS cases and patients' perception of health may also have an impact on this behavior.
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.