ArticleCureus2025
A Case of Suspected Pit Viper Bite in Rural Nepal: Lessons for Snakebite Care.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pit viper envenoming is common across South Asia. Indian polyvalent antivenom (ASV) does not neutralise pit viper venom. Given the inherent uncertainty in snake species identification, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends a syndromic approach to guide ASV use. A 59-year-old woman was bitten on her right ring finger while cutting grass in the Terai farmland of eastern Nepal. Within one hour, she developed hand and forearm oedema with no bleeding or signs of neurotoxicity. Initial coagulation was normal: the 20-minute whole blood clotting test (20WBCT) clotted, prothrombin time (PT) was 12.4 seconds and international normalised ratio (INR) was 1.0. Urinalysis showed no haematuria. Ten vials of ASV were administered at a peripheral treatment centre with no immediate reaction. She was transferred to a tertiary hospital where she received intravenous (IV) fluids and analgesia and was monitored for three days. No coagulopathy developed on serial testing. The presentation suggested pit viper envenoming, for which ASV is ineffective, so administration of ASV added an avoidable anaphylaxis risk. Snake colour reports can inform, but are insufficient to guide treatment. Management should be syndrome-led, informed by local ecology and based on serial coagulation testing. Clear transfer thresholds and avoidance of bleeding risk practices (intramuscular injections and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are vital. System measures, including procurement of antivenom stocks aligned to local snakes, audit, community education and organised transport support early assessment and reduce non-beneficial ASV use. In snakebite where species identification is uncertain, syndromic management guides treatment and reduces iatrogenic harm.
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.