ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2020
[Pediatric spine trauma-Results of a German national multicenter study including 367 patients].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in paediatric trauma patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- [Injuries to the thoracic and lumbar spine in children under 16 years of age-Reality of care in German-speaking countries: a registry study].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn general, pediatric spinal injuries are rare. No reliable data on the epidemiology of spinal injuries in pediatric patients in Germany are available. Especially in pediatric patients, for whom the medical history, clinical examination and the performance of imaging diagnostics are difficult to obtain, all available information on a spinal injury must be taken into account.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to provide epidemiological data for pediatric patients with spinal trauma in Germany in order to enhance future decision-making for the diagnostics and treatment of these patients. MATERIAL AND
methodsWithin the framework of a national multicenter study, data were retrospectively obtained from 6 German spine centers for 7 years between January 2010 and December 2016. In addition to the demographic data, the clinical databases were screened for specific trauma mechanisms, level of injury as well as accompanying injuries. Furthermore, diagnostic imaging and the treatment selected were also analyzed.
resultsA total of 367 children (female: male = 1:1.2) with a total of 610 spinal injuries were included in this study. The mean age was 12 years (±3.5 years). The most frequent trauma mechanisms were falls from <3 m and traffic accidents. The imaging diagnostics were only rarely carried out with the child under anesthesia. Younger children (0-9 years old) suffered more injuries to the cervical spine, whereas injuries to the thoracic and lumbar spine were more frequently found in older children (>10 years old). The children frequently showed accompanying injuries to the head and the extremities. Accompanying spinal injuries mostly occurred in adjacent regions and only rarely in other regions. Around 75% of the children were treated conservatively.
conclusionThe results were different from the knowledge obtained from adult patients with spinal trauma and describe the special circumstances for pediatric patients with spinal trauma. Despite certain limitations these facts may help to enhance future decision-making for the diagnostics and treatment of these patients.
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.