ArticleBMJ open2026
Regional analgesia for hip fractures in emergency departments in Johannesburg, South Africa: a prospective cross-sectional survey assessing doctors' knowledge, attitudes and practices.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
objectiveThis study aimed to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices of emergency department (ED) doctors regarding regional analgesia (RA) for hip fractures and to compare these across levels of experience.
designA prospective, multicentre survey-based cross-sectional study.
settingSurveys were collected at the EDs of three university-affiliated hospitals in Johannesburg, South Africa.
participants80 surveys were collected. Participants included all ED doctors. Doctors completing their internship years were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The primary objectives of this study were to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices of participants regarding the use of RA in hip fractures in the ED; to compare these across different levels of experience based on age, rank and number of years working in the ED; to describe perceived barriers to its use and to describe the frequency of RA use for hip fracture among participants.
resultsThirty-nine per cent of respondents reported having received hip fracture-specific RA training, of whom 52% felt adequately prepared. Knowledge scores (median, IQR) were low for single best answer questions (50%, 39-67) and complications (50%, 38-75), but higher for contraindications (83%, 67-100) and indications (75%, 50-100). Attitudes were broadly positive: 93% viewed RA as safe and effective, and 88% felt all ED doctors should be proficient. Training was mostly informal (94%), predominantly via bedside teaching from an emergency medicine colleague (65%). RA for hip fractures was underused, with 39% reporting never performing it and 27% reporting seldom use. The most cited barrier was a lack of skills (49%), which decreased with increasing ED experience (p=0.012).
conclusionDespite self-reported generally strong positive attitudes towards RA for hip fractures, it remains underused. Insufficient skills and training were the most common self-reported barriers. Future research could be aimed at assessing the impact of standardised training and departmental protocols on clinical practice.
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.