ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2024
Pediatric Burns - Who Requires Follow-up? A Study of Urban Pediatric Emergency Department Patients.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hundreds of children suffer burn injuries each day, yet care guidelines regarding the need for acute inpatient treatment vs outpatient follow-up vs no required follow-up remain nebulous. This gap in the literature is particularly salient for the emergency clinician, who must be able to rapidly determine appropriate disposition. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients presenting to a Level II pediatric trauma center, January 1, 2017-December 31, 2019, and discharged with an International Classification of Diseases, Rev 10, burn diagnosis. We obtained and analyzed demographics, burn characteristics, and follow-up data using univariate and bivariate analysis as well as logistic regression modeling. Patients were stratified into three outcome groups: group 1-patients who underwent emergent evaluation at a burn center or were admitted at their first follow-up appointment; group 2-patients who followed up at a burn center (as an outpatient) or at the emergency department (and were discharged home); and group 3-patients with no known follow-up. Results: A total of 572 patients were included in this study; 58.9% of patients were 1-5 years of age. Sixty-five patients met group 1 criteria, 189 patients met group 2 criteria, and 318 patients met group 3 criteria. Sixty-five percent of patients met at least one American Burn Association criteria, and 79% of all burns were second-degree burns. Flame and scald burns were associated with increased odds (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, OR 1.12) of group 1 vs group 2 + group 3 ( Conclusion: There were few statistically significant variables strongly associated with group 1 (emergent treatment/admission) vs group 2 (follow-up/outpatient treatment) vs group 3 (no follow- up). However, one notable finding in this study was the association of scald burns with treatment (admission or follow-up) suggesting that the presence of a scald burn in a child may signify to clinicians that a burn center consult is warranted.
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.