Evidence Hub

Hematochezia in children with acute diarrhea seeking emergency department care - a prospective cohort study

Böhrer M, Fitzpatrick E, Hurley K, Xie J, Lee BE, Pang XL, Zhuo R, Parsons BD et al.

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2022

1,061 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although the passage of blood in stools in children represents a medical emergency, children seeking emergency department (ED) care remain poorly characterized. Our primary objective was to compare clinical characteristics and etiologic pathogens in children with acute diarrhea with and without caregiver-reported hematochezia. Secondary objectives were to characterize interventions and resource utilization.

METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Alberta Provincial Pediatric EnTeric Infection TEam (APPETITE) database. Children <18 years presenting to two pediatric EDs within a 24-hour period and <7 days of symptoms were consecutively recruited.

RESULTS: Of 1,061 participants, 115 (10.8%) reported hematochezia at the enrollment visit at which time those with hematochezia, compared to those without, had more diarrheal episodes/24-hour period (9 vs. 6; difference: 2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0, 4.0; p < 0.001), and were less likely to have experienced vomiting (54.8% vs. 80.2%; difference: -25.4; 95% CI: -34.9, -16.0; p < 0.001). They were more likely to receive intravenous fluids (33.0% vs. 17.9%; difference: 15.2; 95% CI: 6.2, 24.1; p < 0.001) and require repeat health care visits (45.5% vs. 34.7%; difference: 10.7; 95% CI: 0.9, 20.6; p = 0.03). A bacterial pathogen was identified in 33.0% of children with hematochezia versus 7.9% without (difference: 25.1; 95% CI: 16.3, 33.9; p < 0.001); viruses were detected in 31.3% of children with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,061 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free