SynthesisEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2026
Diagnosis and management of paediatric magnet ingestion: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.
Synthesis in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2026. 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.
- Foreign Body Ingestion in Children: From a Harmless Incident to a Life-Threatening Emergency.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics and therapeutic experiences of magnetic foreign body ingestion in children: a single-center retrospective study.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe widespread use of small and powerful neodymium magnets in consumer products has led to a significant rise in paediatric magnet ingestion. The ingestion of multiple magnets poses serious risks, including bowel obstruction and perforation. Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are necessary to inform clinicians of the safest and most effective management strategies across a range of healthcare settings.
aimThis systematic review aims to summarise existing CPGs for diagnosing and managing paediatric magnet ingestion, evaluate the supporting evidence, highlight variation and consensus, and identify areas requiring further research.
methodsMEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase were searched to identify CPGs. Study characteristics, investigation and management recommendations, and indications for conservative management, endoscopy, surgery and discharge with and without follow-up were extracted. Two reviewers independently assessed CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.
results25 CPGs were included. Recommendations varied for diagnostic imaging, management of single and multiple magnet ingestion and the use of conservative, endoscopic or surgical interventions. However, there was consensus that: abdominal X-ray is the preferred first-line imaging modality, conservative management is recommended for asymptomatic single magnets, endoscopic removal is recommended for prepyloric asymptomatic multiple magnets and surgery for symptomatic multiple magnets. AGREE II appraisal revealed poor scores in CPG Applicability, Stakeholder Involvement and Rigour of Development, but strong scores for Editorial Independence. Existing CPGs for paediatric magnet ingestion are based on low-quality evidence or expert consensus.
conclusionsThis review highlights inconsistencies and areas of consensus in current CPGs for paediatric magnet ingestion. Variations underscore the need for standardised, evidence-based guidelines to optimise care for affected children. Future research should focus on addressing gaps in evidence and consensus to ensure consistent management across healthcare settings.
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.