ArticleInjury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention2014
Keeping children safe at home: protocol for a case-control study of modifiable risk factors for scalds.
Article in Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimethod assessing the prognosis affecting factors of hospitalized children with burns in Zunyi, southwest China.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2021Article
- Comparisons between protocols and publications of case-control studies: analysis of potential causes of non-reproducibility and recommendations for enhancing the quality of personalization in healthcare.The EPMA journal · 2019Article
- Approaches used by parents to keep their children safe at home: a qualitative study to explore the perspectives of parents with children aged under five years.BMC public health · 2015Article
- Parental perceptions of barriers and facilitators to preventing child unintentional injuries within the home: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScalds are one of the most common forms of thermal injury in young children worldwide. Childhood scald injuries, which mostly occur in the home, result in substantial health service use and considerable morbidity and mortality. There is little research on effective interventions to prevent scald injuries in young children.
objectivesTo determine the relationship between a range of modifiable risk factors for medically attended scalds in children under the age of 5 years.
designA multicentre case-control study in UK hospitals and minor injury units with parallel home observation to validate parental reported exposures. Cases will be 0-4 years old with a medically attended scald injury which occurred in their home or garden, matched on gender and age with community controls. An additional control group will comprise unmatched hospital controls drawn from children aged 0-4 years attending the same hospitals and minor injury units for other types of injury. Conditional logistic regression will be used for the analysis of cases and matched controls, and unconditional logistic regression for the analysis of cases and unmatched controls to estimate ORs and 95% CI, adjusted and unadjusted for confounding variables. MAIN EXPOSURE MEASURES: Use of safety equipment and safety practices for scald prevention and scald hazards. DISCUSSION: This large case-control study will investigate modifiable risk factors for scalds injuries, adjust for potential confounders and validate measures of exposure. Its findings will enhance the evidence base for prevention of scalds injuries in young children.
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.