ArticleCureus2024
Knowledge and Awareness of Anaphylaxis and Anaphylactic Shock Among the General Population of the Western Region of Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Public Knowledge and Management Practices of Anaphylaxis in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Anaphylactic shock is a severe and acute life-threatening condition triggered by exposure to common allergens. Despite the increasing incidence of anaphylaxis worldwide, there is still a lack of awareness and understanding of anaphylaxis and its proper management. Methods A descriptive survey design was used to evaluate the knowledge and awareness of anaphylactic shock among the general population in the western region of Saudi Arabia through an online questionnaire distributed from January 2024 to June 2024. The validated questionnaire included demographic information and 18 knowledge-based questions on anaphylaxis. Results The data was collected from 501 participants in the western region of Saudi Arabia. Among them, 290 (58%) were female, and 211 (42%) were male. The largest age group was between 41 and 50 years, comprising 121 participants (24.1%). Additionally, most participants, 298 (59.4%), held a bachelor's degree. A total of 207 participants (41.3%) reported either experiencing anaphylaxis or knowing someone who had. Furthermore, 123 participants (24.5%) underwent tests for anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock, with 88 (17.5%) having a blood test and 35 (7%) having a skin prick test. In terms of knowledge about anaphylaxis, 266 participants (53%) were able to accurately identify multiple symptoms, while 195 (38.9%) were uncertain about the proper diagnostic methods. Moreover, only 92 (18.4%) recognized epinephrine as the first-line treatment, and 125 (25%) knew the correct administration route (intramuscular). 216 participants (43.1%) were aware of the need to visit the ER after using epinephrine. Furthermore, the survey findings indicated that 318 participants (63.5%) acknowledged the dangerous nature of anaphylaxis, with 258 (51.5%) believing that it could be fatal. However, 228 (45.5%) remained unsure about the risk of anaphylaxis-associated organ failure. Conclusion The study highlighted the need for targeted public awareness campaigns to improve understanding and ensure early recognition and correct management of anaphylaxis.
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.