ArticleCureus2024
Exploring the Nature and Challenges Among Physicians in Saudi Arabia Responding to an Inflight Medical Emergency: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
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.
- Emergency at altitude: exploring physicians' knowledge, preparedness, and perspectives on in-flight medical emergencies in Saudi Arabia.World journal of emergency medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Inflight medical emergencies (IMEs) present a challenging situation due to the availability of limited medical resources and a complex cabin environment. The physicians have an ethical responsibility to aid in such situations. This study aims to assess the attitudes of Saudi physicians regarding IMEs. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among medical interns and postgraduate physicians in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected via a structured online questionnaire distributed through professional networks and social media. The survey evaluated physicians' confidence, preparedness, and barriers to volunteering in an IME. Results A total of 368 respondents were included in the study, with a plurality (42.4%, n = 156) in the 30-39 years age group. The proportion of males was 55.2% (n = 203). Among participants, 67.1% (n = 247) had encountered an IME, and 62% (n = 228) had assisted in such a situation. Regarding the nature of IME, 17.9% (n = 66) of the respondents reported respiratory emergency (e.g., bronchospasm). Participants with prior medical emergency experience showed significantly higher scores than those without (54.64 ± 7.81 vs. 49.30 ± 7.10, p < 0.001). Younger physicians (<30 years) displayed the highest confidence scores (54.85 ± 7.03), while those ≥60 years reported the lowest (46.50 ± 4.94, p < 0.01). Physicians with less experience (less than five years) had higher scores compared to their more experienced counterparts (54.69 ± 7.16 vs. 52.25 ± 5.75, p = 0.039). Barriers to volunteering included lack of training (58.6%, n = 215) and legal concerns (61.1%, n = 227), while 67.6% (n = 249) highlighted the need for additional training as a potential motivator. Conclusion Overall, the majority of the participants included in our study were willing to aid in an IME. Furthermore, being younger, less experienced, and having prior emergency experience were significant factors in determining the decision to aid in an IME.
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.