ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Knowledge about Chagas disease among Primary Health Care professionals in a municipality located in northeastern Brazil.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Knowledge about Chagas disease (CD) among health professionals is essential to control this public health problem. The objective was to evaluate the knowledge about CD among these professionals. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between April and September 2023, in the city of Irecê, Bahia State, Brazil. Data were collected using a standardized questionnaire and analyzed descriptively. Of the 257 participants, 226 (87.9%) claimed to know the etiological agent, although only 173 (76.5%) recognized it as a protozoan. Regarding the modes of transmission, all workers recognized the vector-borne route, but only 102 (39.7%) identified the vertical route. The majority of workers identified the heart as the affected organ (n = 255; 99.2%). The most identified signs/symptoms in the acute phase were fever (n = 196; 76.6%) and edema (n = 218; 85.2%); in chronic cases, it was recognized that they can be asymptomatic, but the majority recognized that electrocardiographic changes and congestive heart failure may be present. Regarding etiological treatment, 175 (72.0%) acknowledged its existence, but 122 (65.9%) could not state the recommended medication; and for 189 (73.5%), CD is incurable. Regarding the vector insect, 210 (82.0%) reported knowing it. Concerning the service to which located triatomine bugs should be sent, 165 (65.7%) identified the Zoonoses Control Center, and that the precaution to be taken when handling triatomine bugs was to protect their hands; for 234 (91.8%) of the participants, the procedure in case of a triatomine bite in humans was to perform serological tests, and 243 (94.6%) had never had access to information about CD. The health workers' knowledge about CD was incipient and differed among occupational categories. For accurate surveillance of CD, training should be offered to health professionals, covering everything from signs/symptoms to the investigation of household and entomological contacts.
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.