ArticleTranslational pediatrics2026
Is surgery always necessary for multiple magnet ingestion in children?-evidence for an endoscopy-first approach.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 2026. 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.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple magnet ingestion in children can lead to severe complications, including obstruction, fistula, and perforation. Although surgery has traditionally been the preferred treatment, recent evidence suggests that endoscopy may be safe and effective in selected patients. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of pediatric patients with multiple magnet ingestion treated by endoscopic versus surgical removal, and aimed to clarify which patients should be prioritized for an endoscopy-first approach. Methods: A retrospective review of patients aged <18 years who ingested multiple magnets between May 2016 and August 2025 at two tertiary centers was conducted. The clinical data, imaging findings, treatment modalities, and outcomes were compared between the endoscopic and surgical groups. Results: Thirty-one patients (mean age 4.39±3.46 years; 61.3% boys) were included. Ten patients underwent endoscopic removal (six by duodenofibroscopy and four by ileocolonoscopy), and 21 underwent surgery. Surgery was more common in symptomatic patients who presented late and in those with magnets located beyond endoscopic reach. In selected, early-presenting, asymptomatic patients, endoscopic removal was associated with shorter hospital stay, shorter fasting time, less antibiotic use, and lower rates of severe complications. All endoscopic procedures were performed under moderate sedation, whereas all surgical procedures required general anesthesia. Conclusions: Endoscopy-first approach may be a safe and effective initial option for selected, early-presenting, hemodynamically stable children with endoscopically accessible magnets and no signs of high-grade obstruction or perforation, potentially avoiding unnecessary general anesthesia and surgery.
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.