ArticleBMC research notes2025
Assessing dental students' awareness of anaphylactic shock caused by local anesthetic injection: a cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAnaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction with rapid onset and multi-organ involvement, poses a serious risk in dental emergencies, particularly after local anesthetic injections. Other potential triggers include antibiotics, chlorhexidine, iodoform, and latex. Prompt diagnosis and management are crucial for healthcare professionals, yet some dental students lack the necessary knowledge to handle such emergencies effectively. This study aims to assess the awareness of final-year dental students at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences regarding anaphylactic shock induced by local anesthetic injections.
resultsA total of 206 students (115 females, 91 males), aged 23-27 years, participated. The most common age was 24 (22.8%). Average knowledge scores were 4.04 for anaphylaxis reactions, 2.17 for epinephrine prescription, and 1.50 for symptoms and signs. Female students scored slightly higher on anaphylaxis awareness than males (4.11 vs. 3.95, P = 0.347). Students aged 23 and 27 demonstrated greater knowledge (4.45 and 4.24, P = 0.068). No significant differences were found based on gender, age, or year of entry. Few students had encountered or treated anaphylaxis cases, highlighting the need for improved education on epinephrine use and symptom recognition.
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.