ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2020
Healthcare trajectory of children with rare bone disease attending pediatric emergency departments.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildren with rare bone diseases (RBDs), whether medically complex or not, raise multiple issues in emergency situations. The healthcare burden of children with RBD in emergency structures remains unknown. The objective of this study was to describe the place of the pediatric emergency department (PED) in the healthcare of children with RBD.
methodsWe performed a retrospective single-center cohort study at a French university hospital. We included all children under the age of 18 years with RBD who visited the PED in 2017. By cross-checking data from the hospital clinical data warehouse, we were able to trace the healthcare trajectories of the patients. The main outcome of interest was the incidence (IR) of a second healthcare visit (HCV) within 30 days of the index visit to the PED. The secondary outcomes were the IR of planned and unplanned second HCVs and the proportion of patients classified as having chronic medically complex (CMC) disease at the PED visit.
resultsThe 141 visits to the PED were followed by 84 s HCVs, giving an IR of 0.60 [95% CI: 0.48-0.74]. These second HCVs were planned in 60 cases (IR = 0.43 [95% CI: 0.33-0.55]) and unplanned in 24 (IR = 0.17 [95% CI: 0.11-0.25]). Patients with CMC diseases accounted for 59 index visits (42%) and 43 s HCVs (51%). Multivariate analysis including CMC status as an independent variable, with adjustment for age, yielded an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of second HCVs of 1.51 [95% CI: 0.98-2.32]. The IRR of planned second HCVs was 1.20 [95% CI: 0.76-1.90] and that of unplanned second HCVs was 2.81 [95% CI: 1.20-6.58].
conclusionAn index PED visit is often associated with further HCVs in patients with RBD. The IRR of unplanned second HCVs was high, highlighting the major burden of HCVs for patients with chronic and severe disease.
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.