ArticleCureus2022
Pediatric Upper Cervical Spine Trauma: A 10-Year Retrospective Review at a Pediatric Trauma Center.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Pediatric Upper Cervical Spine Injuries: a Systematic Review].Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca · 2025Pooled it
- Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in paediatric trauma patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Paediatric cervical spine injuries - A descriptive analysis of thirty-two years of experience at a trauma centre.International orthopaedics · 2026Observational
- Surgical Treatment for Displaced Odontoid Synchondrosis Fracture: A Retrospective Case Series Study.Global spine journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Traumatic upper cervical spine injuries (tUCSI) are generally caused by high-impact injuries to the C1-C2 vertebral level. The current literature is limited with regards to comparing epidemiological trends, treatment options, and overall outcomes for tUCSI within the pediatric cohort. The purpose of this study was to analyze pediatric tUCSI epidemiological data, potential variations in treatment and patient outcomes, and to evaluate any specific trends that may be clinically relevant. Methodology We conducted a retrospective cohort study on pediatric patients ages 1 day to 16 years old, admitted for tUCSI over the past 10 years (1/2011 to 1/2021) at a Midwest level 1 trauma center. Retrospective data was queried using ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes for tUCSI. Children were stratified into three age groups: Group 1 - Infants and Toddlers (children under three years of age); Group 2 - Young Children (children between three and seven years of age); Group 3 - Juveniles and Adolescents (children between the ages of seven and 16). Numerical data and categorical variables were summarized and the normality of the distribution of data was evaluated using the Anderson-Darling normality test. Differences between the age groups were examined using either an unpaired, independent Two-Sample t-test or Unpaired Mann-Whitney U test. Pearson's chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical data between groups. Results Forty total patients were included in the final analysis, 23 female (57.5%) and 17 male (42.5%). The mean age was 11 ± 4 (range 2-16). Overall, the most common mechanism of injury was a motor vehicle collision (n=16, 40%), followed by sports injury (n=13, 32.5%), falls (n=6, 15%), and unknown mechanism (n=5, 12.5%). The most common mechanism of injury in young children was a fall (n=4, 57.5%,
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.