ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Etiological Profile of Epistaxis: Pre-Pandemic Versus Pandemic.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender disparities in hospital admission patterns during the COVID-19 health emergency: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nosebleed or epistaxis is one of the most common forms of presenting an emergency in the ENT field. Since March 11, 2020, the World Health Organisation has proclaimed COVID-19 a global pandemic, and the world has been closed down. The main objective of the study is to analyse and compare the dynamics of epistaxis aetiology among the cases that required hospitalisation in the pre-pandemic period and the period of the COVID 19 pandemic. The study is multicenter retrospective from October 2018 to May 2022, including 380 cases of hospitalised epistaxis, with the mention that March 2020 is considered the beginning of the pandemic period. 60.8% of the patients enrolled in the study in the pre-pandemic period (60.8%) and 39.2% in the pandemic period. Differences between groups were not statistically significant between study entries (pre-pandemic vs. pandemic) and age (p=0.331), gender (p=0.916) or existence of local causes for epistaxis (p=0.895). Patients with general causes for epistaxis were more frequently enrolled in the pandemic period, while patients without general causes for epistaxis were more frequently enrolled in the pre-pandemic period. Patients with a hospitalisation period of more than 5 days were more frequently enrolled in the pre-pandemic period while patients with a hospitalisation period of 3 to 5 days were more frequently enrolled in the pandemic period. Also, patients with idiopathic epistaxis were more frequently enrolled in the pre-pandemic period. Based on the results presented in our study, the period of the Covid 19 pandemic directly influenced both the number of patients and the period of hospitalisation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.