Observational studyRevista espanola de salud publica2020
[Consultations for digestive foreign bodies ingestion in a pediatric emergency department.]
Observational study in Revista espanola de salud publica, 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, 0 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveForeign body (FB) ingestion distresses many families who consult the emergency department promptly. The objective of the study is to determine the epidemiological characteristics of children who consult due to suspected FB intake and its consequences.
methodsDescriptive-observational study, carried out in a third-level maternal and child center. Emergency reports were selected from patients under 18 years of age with a diagnosis of discharge "Ingesta CE" (code 938 CIM-9-MC until May 2018; code T18.9XXA CIM-10-MC later) from 1/1/2017 until 12/31/2018. Miscoded and reconsultations within the same episode were excluded. Data was analysed with the statistics program SPSS 25.0.
results458 cases were included; median age 3.8 years (p25-75: 1.9-6.6 years); 267 (58.3%) males. 78.9% consulted in the first 6 hours after intake. Accidental cause was reported in 98.9% of cases. In 96.7% a single FB was ingested. The most frequent types of object were metallic (46.7%), plastics (16.4%) and food bones/shells (12.9%). The 23.6% of FB involved were sharp/pointed. 49.1% of the patients presented symptoms. A complementary test was performed in 69.4%, especially radiographs (63.5%). Metal detector was used in 10%. 9.6% required endoscopy. 90.4% were discharged from the emergency department, with 12.1% of reconsultations.
conclusionsConsultations for FB ingestion are relatively frequent in the emergency department and, although most of them are discharged, many patients require complementary tests and a non-negligible number, endoscopy. The patient's profile is that of a preschooler who spontaneously goes to the emergency room due to an accidental ingestion of a blunt metallic object.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32728017PMC11582972W3047231903What 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.