ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Variability in risk tolerance and adherence to guidelines in "go or no-go" decisions among anesthetists handling obstetric patients in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Decision-making in obstetric anesthesia is critical for patient safety. Yet, adherence to clinical guidelines varies among anesthetists. Previous research has shown significant variability in risk tolerance when making "go or no-go" decisions. Still, limited data exist on how these decisions are influenced by experience and training in obstetric cases. This study aims to assess the variability in risk tolerance and adherence to guidelines among anesthetists providing care to obstetric patients in Saudi Arabia and identify factors influencing their decisions. Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted among 188 anesthetists practicing in Saudi Arabia. The survey included 10 clinical scenarios requiring anesthetists to decide whether to proceed with anesthesia under suboptimal conditions. Responses were analyzed using a four-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were used to assess the association between decision-making and independent factors such as level of training, years of experience, and previous exposure to similar cases. Results: There was no absolute consensus in decision-making across the scenarios. The majority opted not to proceed in cases involving patient safety risks, such as absent cross-matching blood (82%) or a malfunctioning anesthesia machine (89%). Previous exposure to similar cases was the only significant factor influencing the anesthetists' decisions ( Conclusion: Variability in decision-making suggests that risk tolerance is not solely dependent on experience but is shaped by prior case exposure. Strengthening simulation-based training and structured risk assessment tools may improve adherence to clinical guidelines in obstetric anesthesia.
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.