Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37645670›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Spine Injuries in Household Environments: A Comprehensive Analysis.

Gurbinder Singh, Varun Rao, Aish Thamba, Bhavya Pahwa, Mohamed Zaazoue

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Gurbinder SinghDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, USA.
Varun RaoDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Aish ThambaDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Bhavya PahwaMedical School, University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, IND.
Mohamed ZaazoueDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
University College of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Recognizing the concerns posed by spine injuries within homes, stemming from falls, interactions with furnishings, and daily activities, it is imperative to consider preventive strategies. Our analysis of spine injuries utilizing the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) data sheds light on falls, furnishings, age-specific risks, recreation, technology, and socioeconomic disparities as contributing elements, accentuating the need for targeted interventions. This study aims to provide insights into the prevalence of spine injuries in different household locations, associated products, age groups, and gender, thus informing injury prevention strategies for safer living environments. Methods This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study utilizing data between 2013 to 2022 from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database. Specific household product codes and demographic data, such as age and gender, were analyzed. Statistical analysis in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) involved descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regressions. Results In analyzing 44,267 spine injuries, the study revealed location-specific variations in spine injuries within households. Living rooms and bedrooms had the highest injury rates at 34.17% and 21.65%, respectively. Significant differences in injury rates between males and females across various home locations. Females accounted for 51.78% of injuries in the living room and 59.99% in the bedroom. In the kitchen, females experienced 53.21% of injuries, while males accounted for 46.79% of cases. Notably, overall spine injuries exhibited a significant difference between males and females, with females having a higher total likelihood of injuries (AOR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.14-1.77, p < 0.001). Regarding age, individuals between 51-60 years were most vulnerable to spine injuries, accounting for 17.98% of total cases. Notably, the age group of 61-70 years exhibited a substantial proportion of injuries at 17.12%, while the age group of 71-80 years accounted for 14.39%. The age group of 41-50 years also displayed a notable injury rate of 14.12%. The youngest age group, 0-10 years, demonstrated the lowest percentage of injuries at 4.79%. This age-based analysis provides valuable insights into the distribution of spine injuries across different demographic segments. Regarding age, individuals between 51-60 years were most vulnerable to spine injuries, comprising 17.98% of total cases. Age groups of 41-50 and 61-70 years also showed substantial proportions of injuries, accounting for 14.12% and 17.12%, respectively. The youngest age group, 0-10, exhibited the lowest percentage of injuries at 4.79%. Conclusion The study focuses on the occurrence of spinal injuries in common sites of injury in the household, such as the living room, bedroom, kitchen, and stairs. There is increased prevalence amongst females and increased risk vulnerability amongst people 51 to 60 years of age. Our research emphasizes the necessity of implementing specific injury prevention measures tailored to different demographic groups within their home setting. This approach should involve collaborative decision-making with patients while prioritizing patient education to create a safer living environment and reduce the likelihood of spine injuries.

Indexed as

age-specific risksgender-based differenceshome locationsspine injuriestrauma and injury prevention

Identifiers

PMID37645670
PMCPMC10462396
OpenAlexW4386212886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.