Evidence Hub

Emergency department consultations associated with unintentional injuries: A cases series

Arribas Sánchez C, Bardón Cancho EJ, Rivas García A, Mintegi S, Marañón Pardillo R, en representación del grupo de Observatorio de lesiones no intencionadas de Red de Investigación de la Sociedad Española de Urgencias de Pediatría (RiSeup-Sperg)

Anales de pediatria, 2018

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of children who are attended in Emergency Departments (EDs) for an unintentional injury in Spain.

METHODS: Multicentre case series with prospective data collection conducted during 12 months in the ED of 11 hospitals belonging to the Spanish Paediatric Emergency Research Group. Data were collected between September 2014 and January 2015, continuing for one year in all paediatric EDs, and included children between 0 and 16 years old seen for an unintentional injury.

RESULTS: A total of 10,175 episodes were recorded during the study, of which 1,941 were due to unintentional injuries (19.1%, 95% CI: 18.3%-19.8%), and 1,673 of these were included in the study. Falling, direct injuries, and injuries due to sports activities represented more than 80%, with significant variations in the injuries mechanism observed in different age groups. More than occurred at home or school. About 40% of the unintentional injuries were not witnessed by an adult. The most frequent diagnosis was limb trauma (63.0%), with a fracture being observed in 242 (14.4% of unintentional injuries). As regards fractures, 34 (2.0%) were admitted to hospital, with 21 (61.8%) for surgical reduction of the fracture. No deaths were recorded in the first 24h.

CONCLUSIONS: Unintentional injuries constitute a very common reason for consultation in EDs in Spain. The circumstances surrounding the unintentional injuries should be considered, in order…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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