ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2025
Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Rattlesnake Envenomation in Arizona Following Treatment With Crofab vs Anavip: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes regarding tissue injury caused by rattlesnake envenomation for patients treated with Crofab or Anavip. Methods: We performed a chart review of the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center's records from January 2017 through December 2021 for patients who received antivenom for rattlesnake envenomation. We present responses to standardized questions asked on days 7, 14, 90, and 180 regarding the presence of pain, edema, and functional impairment, with full recovery defined as the resolution of all 3. Results: Patients treated with Crofab (n = 272) and Anavip (n = 241) were similar with regard to age, sex, bite location, and time to treatment. At each time point, the percentage of patients reporting resolution of pain, edema, or function was higher in patients treated with Crofab, when compared with those treated with Anavip. Clinically important differences in the percentage of patients reporting full recovery favoring Crofab were identified at 7 days (15.1% vs 6.6%, difference 8.5%, 95% CI: 3.1%-13.7%), 14 days (34.6% vs 24.9%, difference 9.7%, 95% CI: 1.8%-17.5%), and 90 days (60.3% vs 52.7%, difference 7.6%, 95% CI: -1.0% to 16.2%). Conclusion: Following rattlesnake envenomation in Arizona, patients treated with Crofab had higher rates of full recovery from tissue injury than patients treated with Anavip at 7, 14, 90, and 180 days.
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.