misconceptions and myths in the management of animal bite cases
Clicks: 123
ID: 161679
2002
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
123 views
12 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #73 of 109 articles by views in eurasian chemico-technological journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Research question : What are the common myths and misconceptions in the management of animal bite cases among patients attending antirabies clinic, Rajindra Hospital Patiala. Objectives: 1. To find out beliefs and misconceptions among patients attending Antirabies clinic. 2. To study distribution of bites in relation to different variables. Setting: Antirabies clinic, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala (Deptt. of Community Medicine). Study design: Retrospective study. Sample size: 4.585 patients who attended the Antirabies clinic in a period of 3 years and 9 months. Statistical analysis: Simple proportions. Study variables : Age, sex, place, literacy, class of bite, myths. Results: Out of 4.585 patients, 71.4% were males and 61.8% reported from urban area. Majority of the patients were in age group 15-30 years and 59.2% were literate. Majority (95%) of cases were of dog bite followed by monkey bite (1.8%) buffalo bite(1.6%) and cat bit (1.3%). 38.6% patients presented with class III bites. Common practices prevalent in the management of wounds were washing with soap and water (21.02%), with only water (9.53%), application of chilies (14.18%), dettol and antiseptic (5.45%), cowdung (0.46%) and carbon (0.89%).
| Reference Key |
a.s2002indianmisconceptions
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Sekhon A.S;Singh Amarjit;Kaur Paramjit;Gupta Sonia |
| Journal | eurasian chemico-technological journal |
| Year | 2002 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.