Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16998079›Full record

ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2006

Home safety measures and the risk of unintentional injury among young children: a multicentre case-control study.

John C LeBlanc, I Barry Pless, W James King, Harry Bawden, Anne-Claude Bernard-Bonnin, Terry Klassen, Milton Tenenbein

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. A randomised safety promotion intervention trial among low-income families with toddlers.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2018
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Incidence, patterns and risk factors for injuries among Ugandan children.International journal of injury control and safety promotion · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Keeping children safe at home: protocol for a case-control study of modifiable risk factors for scalds.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2014
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Epidemiological risk analysis of home injuries in Italy (1999-2006).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2014
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

John C LeBlancIWK Health Centre and the Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. john.leblanc@dal.ca
I Barry Pless
W James King
Harry Bawden
Anne-Claude Bernard-Bonnin
Terry Klassen
Milton Tenenbein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundYoung children may sustain injuries when exposed to certain hazards in the home. To better understand the relation between several childproofing strategies and the risk of injuries to children in the home, we undertook a multicentre case-control study in which we compared hazards in the homes of children with and without injuries.

methodsWe conducted this case-control study using records from 5 pediatric hospital emergency departments for the 2-year period 1995-1996. The 351 case subjects were children aged 7 years and less who presented with injuries from falls, burns or scalds, ingestions or choking. The matched control subjects were children who presented during the same period with acute non-injury-related conditions. A home visitor, blinded to case-control status, assessed 19 injury hazards at the children's homes.

resultsHazards found in the homes included baby walkers (21% of homes with infants), no functioning smoke alarm (17% of homes) and no fire extinguisher (51% of homes). Cases did not differ from controls in the mean proportion of home hazards. After controlling for siblings, maternal education and employment, we found that cases differed from controls for 5 hazards: the presence of a baby walker (odds ratio [OR] 9.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-71.0), the presence of choking hazards within a child's reach (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-3.7), no child-resistant lids in bathroom (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.5), no smoke alarm (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.7) and no functioning smoke alarm (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.8).

interpretationHomes of children with injuries differed from those of children without injuries in the proportions of specific hazards for falls, choking, poisoning and burns, with a striking difference noted for the presence of a baby walker. In addition to counselling parents about specific hazards, clinicians should consider that the presence of some hazards may indicate an increased risk for home injuries beyond those directly related to the hazard found. Families with any home hazard may be candidates for interventions to childproof against other types of home hazards.

Indexed as

Protective DevicesSafetyCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolChild WelfareFemaleHousingHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleRisk FactorsWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID16998079
PMCPMC1586091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.