Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38647997›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology2024

Is EGD Needed in all Patients after Suicidal or Exploratory Caustic Ingestions?

Michael Levine, Yaron Finkelstein, William J Trautman, Dazhe Cao, Evan Schwarz, Ari Filip, Leanne Cook, Sameer Arbussattar Pathan, Cherie Obilom, Jim Liu and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Do Asymptomatic Patients Need Endoscopy after Caustic Ingestion?Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Michael LevineDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, 1100 Glendon Ave. Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. michaellevine@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3866-0509
Yaron FinkelsteinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
William J TrautmanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Medical Toxicology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Dazhe CaoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Medical Toxicology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Evan SchwarzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, 1100 Glendon Ave. Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA.
Ari FilipDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Medical Toxicology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Leanne CookDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, 1100 Glendon Ave. Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA.
Sameer Arbussattar PathanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad General Hospital, Doah, Qatar.
Cherie ObilomDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Medical Toxicology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Jim LiuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Medical Toxicology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Joseph YantaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Medical Toxicology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Neta CohenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Stephen H ThomasDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Southwestern Medical CenterUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USHospital for Sick Children · CAUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USHamad General Hospital · QAWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaustic ingestions are relatively uncommon, but remain a significant source of morbidity. Patients with caustic injury often undergo an urgent EGD, although it is not clear if an EGD is routinely needed in an asymptomatic patient. The study has two primary objectives; 1) to determine the utility of routine EGD in asymptomatic suicidal caustic ingestions; 2) to determine if asymptomatic unintentional acidic ingestions can be managed with observation alone, similar to basic ingestions.

methodsThis retrospective study, which took place at 14 hospitals in three countries evaluated all patients who presented with a caustic ingestion between 2014-2020. The presence of symptoms and esophageal injury, demographic information, pH of ingested substance, reason for the ingestion, and outcome were recorded.

results409 patients were identified; 203 (46.9%) were male. The median (IQR) age was 18 (4-31) years; overall range 10 months to 78 years. Suicidal ingestions accounted for 155 (37.9%) of cases. Dysphagia or dysphonia were more likely in those with significant esophageal injury compared to those without (59.3% vs. 12.6% respectively; OR 10.1; 95% CI 4.43-23.1). Among 27 patients with significant esophageal injury, 48% were found in suicidal patients, compared with 51.9% in non-suicidal patients (p = NS). On multivariate regression, there was no difference in the rate of significant esophageal injury among suicidal vs. non suicidal patients (aOR 1.55; p = 0.45, 95% CI 0.45-5.33). Most ingestions involved basic substances (332/409; 81.2%). Unknown or mixed ingestions accounted for 25 (6.11%) of the ingestions. Significant esophageal burns were found in 6/52 (11.5%) of acid ingestions, compared with 21/332 (6.3%) of basic ingestions. Of the 42 cases of acidic ingestions without dysphagia or odynophagia, 2 (4.8%; 0.58-16.1%) had significant esophageal burns, compared with 9 (3.2%; 95% CI 1.4-5.9%) of the 284 basic ingestions; p = 0.64). On multivariate logistic regression, patients with acidic ingestions were not more likely to experience a significant burn (aOR 1.7; p = 0.11, 95% CI 0.9-3.1) compared to those with basic ingestions. No patient with significant esophageal burns was asymptomatic.

conclusionIn this study, there was no statistical differences in the rates of significant burns between acidic and basic caustic ingestions. There were no significant esophageal injuries noted among asymptomatic patients.

Indexed as

Burns, ChemicalCausticsAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolEndoscopy, Digestive SystemEsophagusFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSuicide, AttemptedCausticsAcidBaseCausticEsophageal burnIngestion

Identifiers

PMID38647997
PMCPMC11288223
OpenAlexW4394998691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.