Pediatric Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability in children. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have addressed pediatric TBI in the last decade but significant variability in the use of these guidelines persists. Here, we systematically review CPGs recommendations for pediatric moderate-to-severe TBI, evaluate the quality of CPGs, synthesize the quality of evidence and strength of included recommendations, and identify knowledge gaps. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Web sites of organizations publishing recommendations on pediatric injury care. We included CPGs developed in high-income countries from January 2012 to May 2023, with at least one recommendation targeting pediatric (≤ 19 years old) moderate-to-severe TBI populations. The quality of included clinical practice guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool. We synthesized evidence on recommendations using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We identified 15 CPGs of which 9 were rated moderate to high quality using AGREE II. We identified 90 recommendations, of which 40 (45%) were evidence based. Eleven of these were based on moderate to high quality evidence and were graded as moderate or strong by at least one guideline. These included transfer, imaging, intracranial pressure control, and discharge advice. We identified gaps in evidence-based recommendations for red blood cell transfusion, plasma and platelet transfusion, thromboprophylaxis, surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis, early diagnosis of hypopituitarism, and mental health mangement. Many up-to-date CPGs are available, but there is a paucity of evidence to support recommendations, highlighting the urgent need for robust clinical research in this vulnerable population. Our results may be used by clinicians to identify recommendations based on the highest level of evidence, by healthcare administrators to inform guideline implementation in clinical settings, by researchers to identify areas where robust evidence is needed, and by guideline writing groups to inform the updating of existing guidelines or the development of new ones.

Clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric solid organ injury care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Observed variations in the management of pediatric solid organ injuries (SOIs) may be due to difficulty in finding and integrating recommendations from multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with heterogeneous methodological approaches. We aimed to systematically review CPG recommendations for pediatric SOIs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting pediatric SOI populations, using Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Web of Science, and websites of clinical organizations. Pairs of reviewers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool. We synthesized recommendations from moderate to high-quality CPGs using a recommendations matrix based on Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: We identified eight CPGs, including three rated moderate or high quality. Methodological weaknesses included lack of stakeholder involvement beyond surgeons, consideration of applicability (e.g., implementation tools), and clarity around the definition of pediatric populations. Five of the 15 recommendations from moderate to high-quality CPGs were based on moderate quality evidence or were rated as strong; these reflected nonoperative management and angioembolization for renal injuries and required length of stay for liver and spleen injuries. CONCLUSION: We identified 15 recommendations on pediatric SOI management from 3 moderate or high-quality CPGs, but only one third were based on at least moderate-quality evidence or were rated as strong. Our results prompt the following recommendations for future CPG development or updates: (1) include all types of clinicians involved in the care of pediatric SOIs and patient and family representatives in the process, (2) develop clear definitions of the target population, and (3) provide advice and tools to promote implementation. Results also underline the urgent need for more rigorous research to support strong evidence-based recommendations in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis; Level III.

Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations For Pediatric Multisystem Trauma Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for pediatric multisystem trauma, appraise their quality, synthesize the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence, and identify knowledge gaps. BACKGROUND: Traumatic injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in children, who require a specific approach to injury care. Difficulties integrating CPG recommendations may cause observed practice and outcome variation in pediatric trauma care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials, and grey literature, from January 2007 to November 2022. We included CPGs targeting pediatric multisystem trauma with recommendations on any acute care diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. Pairs of reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of CPGs using "Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II." RESULTS: We reviewed 19 CPGs, and 11 were considered high quality. Lack of stakeholder engagement and implementation strategies were weaknesses in guideline development. We extracted 64 recommendations: 6 (9%) on trauma readiness and patient transfer, 24 (38%) on resuscitation, 22 (34%) on diagnostic imaging, 3 (5%) on pain management, 6 (9%) on ongoing inpatient care, and 3 (5%) on patient and family support. Forty-two (66%) recommendations were strong or moderate, but only 5 (8%) were based on high-quality evidence. We did not identify recommendations on trauma survey assessment, spinal motion restriction, inpatient rehabilitation, mental health management, or discharge planning. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 5 recommendations for pediatric multisystem trauma with high-quality evidence. Organizations could improve CPGs by engaging all relevant stakeholders and considering barriers to implementation. There is a need for robust pediatric trauma research, to support recommendations.

Clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric injury care: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests the presence of deficiencies in the quality of care provided to up to half of all paediatric trauma patients in Canada, the USA and Australia. Lack of adherence to evidence-based recommendations may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aim to systematically review CPG recommendations for paediatric injury care and appraise their quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify CPG recommendations through a comprehensive search strategy including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials and websites of organisations publishing recommendations on paediatric injury care. We will consider CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting paediatric injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention from the acute phase of care with any comparator developed in high-income countries in the last 15 years (January 2007 to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text of eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the quality of CPGs and their recommendations using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and AGREE Recommendations Excellence instruments, respectively. We will synthesise evidence on recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework and present results within a recommendations matrix. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not a requirement as this study is based on available published data. The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international scientific meetings and distributed to healthcare providers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021226934).

Vaping implications for children and youth.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The development and uptake of E cigarettes are a relatively recent phenomenon. Because of aggressive marketing, attractive designs, enticing flavors and primarily reactionary legislation, we are now seeing soaring rates of adolescent vaping with associated consequences. This review explores how E cigarettes work, their health implications, epidemiology among youth and current regulatory strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 27% of high school students had used a tobacco product within the last month, the majority being E-cigarettes in 20.8% of high school students. Vaping has managed to reverse a decades long trend of declining nicotine use among youth. Long-term addiction is not the only concern related to youth vaping; there are also increasing reports of short-term health consequences, such as seizures, acute nicotine toxicity, burns and lung injury. SUMMARY: Industry has created and aggressively marketed a product that is enticing to adolescents. E cigarettes have sleek designs, desirable flavors and social acceptability with perceived safety among youth. This has resulted in epidemic E cigarette use in youth with resultant significant short-term and long-term health concerns. Legislation must include regulations that strictly avoid marketing and sales to youth, as well as reducing access to these products.

Which pediatric blunt trauma patients do not require pelvic imaging?

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to develop a tool in identifying traumatized children at low risk of pelvic fracture and to determine the sensitivity of this low-risk model for pelvic fractures. We hypothesized that the proportion of children without predictors with pelvic fracture is less than 1%. METHODS: This is a retrospective trauma registry analysis of previously healthy children 1 year to 17 years old presenting to the pediatric emergency department with blunt trauma. Postulated predictors of pelvic fracture on radiograph or computed tomography included pain/abnormal examination result of the pelvis/hip, femur deformity, hematuria, abdominal pain/tenderness, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 or lower, and hemodynamic instability. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify independent predictors of fracture. RESULTS: Of 1,121 eligible patients (mean [SD] age, 8.5 [4.6] years), 87 (7.8%) had pelvic fracture. Independent predictors included pain/abnormal examination result of the pelvis/hip (odds ratio [OR], 16.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6-29.1), hematuria (OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 3.0-14.6), femoral deformity (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.1-11.3), GCS score of 13 or lower (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.3), and hemodynamic instability (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7-6.9). One of 590 children (0.2%; 95% CI, 0-0.5%) without predictors had pelvic fractures versus 86 (16.2%) of 531 in those with one or more predictors (OR, 119; 95% CI, 16.6-833). One of 87 children with pelvic fractures had no predictors (1.1%; 95% CI, 0-3%). When assuming a 100% radiography rate, this tool saves 53% pelvic radiographs. CONCLUSION: Children with multiple blunt trauma without pain/abnormal examination result of the pelvis/hip, femur deformity, hematuria, abdominal pain/tenderness, GCS score of 13 or lower, or hemodynamic instability constitute a low-risk population for pelvic fracture, with less than 0.5% risk rate. This population does not require routine pelvic imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.