ArticleBMJ open2022
Epidemiology of rabies immune globulin use in paediatric and adult patients in the USA: a cross-sectional prevalence study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Involved in the Immunological Protection against Rabies Virus in Dogs in Spain.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Review
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the epidemiology of paediatric and adult patients receiving rabies immune globulin (RIG).
designCross-sectional prevalence study.
settingEligible participants from the Symphony Integrated Dataverse presenting between 2013 and 2019.
participantsAll adult and paediatric patients with integrated claims and demographic data associated with RIG use from the Symphony Integrated Dataverse from 2013 to 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of diagnoses and procedures associated with paediatric and adult patient population based on frequency of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9/ICD-10) and Current Procedural Terminology codes, respectively.
methodsWe used mutual information to identify features that differentiate the paediatric from adult patient population. Prevalence ratios were calculated to compare adult and paediatric patients.
resultsThere were 79 766 adult and 20 381 paediatric patients who met the inclusion criteria. Paediatric patients had a 5.92-fold higher prevalence of 'open wounds to the head; neck; and trunk', 3.10-fold higher prevalence of 'abrasion or friction burn of face; neck; and scalp except eye; without mention of infection', 4.44-fold higher prevalence of 'open wound of scalp; without mention of complication' and 6.75-fold higher prevalence of 'laceration of skin of eyelid and periocular area | laceration of eyelid involving lacrimal passages'. Paediatric patients had a 3.83-fold higher prevalence of complex repairs compared with adult patients (n=157, 0.7% vs n=157, 0.2%, respectively).
conclusionsPaediatric patients represent a significant proportion of the patient population receiving RIG, and are associated with higher prevalence of codes reporting repair of larger, more complex wounds in highly innervated anatomical regions. Dosing and administration of RIG must be informed by animal bite wound characteristics; clinicians should understand the differences between presentations in adults and children and treat accordingly.
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.