ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Enhancing clinical risk assessment in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma: A novel scoring system using ultrasound and laboratory data.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the importance of diagnosing intra-abdominal injury (IAI) in children with blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) and preventing radiation exposure to children by avoiding CT scans, this study aimed to evaluate a scoring criterion based on ultrasound (US) findings and laboratory data in assessing the clinical risk of IAI in children with BAT. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, baseline and clinical information of 180 children (under 18 years of age) with BAT including physical examination, hemodynamic parameters, and laboratory data, were extracted from medical records. US findings were considered abnormal if any report of mild free fluid or solid organ injury was noted. The presence or absence of IAI was assessed through medical records or telephone interviews to inquire about the patients' outcome within the two-week period post-discharge. The primary outcome was the identification of IAI, assessed through a combination of US findings, physical examination (abdominal tenderness), and laboratory parameters (WBC count and hematuria). The measurement methods included Chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact test, independent samples t-test, logistic regression, and ROC analysis.
resultsThe current study showed that 153 (85%) and 27 (15%) patients were without and with IAI, respectively. The positive US finding with sensitivity and specificity of 92.59% and 44.44%, respectively, abdominal tenderness with sensitivity and specificity of 81.48% and 87.58%, respectively, hematuria with sensitivity and specificity of 62.96% and 50.33%, respectively, and high WBC level with sensitivity and specificity of 85.19% and 76.47%, had a significant diagnostic value in detecting the presence of IAI (P value < 0.001). A cutoff point ≥ 2 from the sum of the scores of these four criteria can predict the presence of IAI with a sensitivity of 81.48% and a specificity of 94.12% (AUC = 0.94; P value < 0.001).
conclusionThis study shows that a scoring system based on positive US findings, abdominal tenderness, hematuria, and high WBC levels effectively diagnoses IAI in BAT children. A score of 2 or more strongly indicates the presence of IAI, improving decision-making for further imaging and treatment. Implementing this system can reduce unnecessary CT scans and radiation exposure, enhancing pediatric trauma care.
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.