ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Perioperative medication therapy for Muslim patients in Germany undergoing oncological surgery: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEngagement of healthcare professionals with patients from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds is crucial in our multicultural society, where miscommunication and errors in medical history taking can lead to incorrect treatment. In particular, Muslim patients may present unique considerations due to their specific cultural and religious beliefs, which can significantly impact treatment outcomes. This study focuses on perioperative medication therapy for patients undergoing upper and lower gastrointestinal tract and pancreatic tumor surgery, specifically examining whether Islamic beliefs were duly considered in medication selection compared to a matching patient cohort. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from January 2004 to July 2023 were analyzed. Muslim patients were identified using the onomastic method and matched with non-Muslim patients at a 1:3 ratio based on age, gender, and procedure. Analysis included examination of subcutaneous, oral, and intravenous medications, with attention to ingredients and compatibility with Islamic principles.
resultsAmong 5272 patients, only 5 met the study's inclusion criteria as Muslim patients, undergoing procedures such as anterior rectum resection, gastrectomy, and pancreatic head resection. Their religious affiliations were not documented in the admission records. According to the matched-pair analysis, consistent treatment was performed regardless of religious beliefs. All patients received subcutaneous medication, primarily enoxaparin, instead of fondaparinux, an Islam-compliant alternative. Intravenous heparin was used once for short period. Contrary to Islamic dietary restrictions and the availability of alternatives, capsules containing animal-derived gelatin and other non-compliant medications were administered orally.
conclusionThis study underscores the importance of acknowledging Muslim patients' cultural and religious backgrounds in the perioperative setting, as failure to do so may lead healthcare professionals to overlook their potential alternative medication needs, which are essential for providing tailored medical care in modern societies. Integration of diversity-related topics into medical curricula is essential for better preparing physicians for clinical practice and ensuring patient-centered care.
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.