Observational studyIndian journal of pharmacology2025
Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding reporting of adverse events due to medical devices among healthcare workers in Gujarat.
Observational study in Indian journal of pharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) regarding reporting adverse events due to medical devices among healthcare workers in our hospital. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional, observational, and questionnaire (KAP) study was conducted among healthcare professionals working in the various departments of our hospital. Healthcare professionals from different specialties who volunteered to participate in the study were enrolled. A total of 15 questions were included: 8 based on knowledge (7 scored), 2 on attitude, and 5 on practice. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel® worksheet, Chi-square, and unpaired t-test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 370 responses were received. The knowledge of healthcare workers was found to be 73.57%. The mean score (out of 7) for doctors and paramedical staff was 5.78 ± 1.21 and 3.76 ± 1.50, respectively, indicating a wide knowledge gap between them (P < 0.05). Most healthcare workers (63%) reported witnessing fewer than 5 MDAEs. The majority (37.30%) mentioned that the cause of underreporting was a lack of knowledge. Out of all healthcare workers, 85.13% responded positively and are willing to report MDAEs in future, and most of them considered it important to report MDAEs.
conclusionDespite healthcare professionals having adequate knowledge and a positive attitude toward reporting, very poor reporting of MDAEs is observed. Lack of knowledge is a significant barrier leading to underreporting, and a substantial knowledge gap among healthcare professionals is evident.
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.