Computed Tomography Use in Children With Minor Head Trauma Presenting to 21 Community Emergency Departments Within an Integrated Health-Care System.

INTRODUCTION: Decreasing unnecessary cranial computed tomography (CT) use in pediatric head trauma patients remains important for emergency departments (EDs) across the US. Our study evaluated CT use in children with minor blunt head trauma in 21 community EDs within an integrated health-care system. METHODS: We studied all children younger than 18 years old presenting to 21 community EDs between 2016 through 2018 with acute minor blunt head trauma, defined by an algorithm of ED chief complaints and diagnoses. We excluded patients with traumatic brain injuries diagnosed in the prior year, a CT within 24 hours prior to the ED visit, or an ED Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 14. RESULTS: Among 39,792 pediatric minor head trauma ED visits, the aggregate CT use proportion across all EDs was 12.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 12.6-13.3%; facility-level range, 5.4-21.6%]. The 7 facilities that had previously received a clinical decision support system intervention implementing the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network rules during 2013 through 2014 had an aggregate mean CT ordering rate of 11.2% (95% CI, 10.7-11.7%; facility-level range, 5.4-14.3%) compared to 14.1% (95% CI, 13.6-14.5%; facility-level range, 7.3-21.6%) for the nonintervention facilities. CONCLUSION: CT use for children with minor blunt head trauma in the community EDs of an integrated health-care system was low and stable across facilities from 2016 through 2018. This may be indicative of the safe stewardship of resources in the system, including the absence of financial or medicolegal incentives to scan very low-risk patients as well the availability of resources for close patient follow-up.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute soft tissue injuries are common and costly. The best drug treatment for such injuries is not certain, although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often recommended. There is concern about the use of oral opioids for acute pain leading to dependence. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits or harms of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, 2020 Issue 1, MEDLINE (from 1946), and Embase (from 1980) to January 2020; other databases were searched to February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving people with acute soft tissue injury (sprain, strain, or contusion of a joint, ligament, tendon, or muscle occurring within 48 hours of inclusion in the study), and comparing oral NSAIDs versus paracetamol (acetaminophen), opioid, paracetamol plus opioid, or complementary and alternative medicine. The outcomes were pain, swelling, function, adverse effects, and early re-injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies, with 3305 participants. Three studies included children only. The others included predominantly young adults; approximately 60% were male. Seven studies recruited people with ankle sprains only. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of bias; however, two were at high risk of selection bias, three were at high risk of bias from lack of blinding, and five were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. Some evidence relating to pain relief was high certainty. Other evidence was either moderate, low or very low certainty, reflecting study limitations, indirectness, imprecision, or combinations of these. Thus, we are certain or moderately certain about some of the estimates, and uncertain or very uncertain of others. Eleven studies, involving 1853 participants compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. There were no differences between the two groups in pain at one to two hours (1178 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), at days one to three (1232 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), and at day seven or later (467 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was little difference between the groups in numbers of participants with minimal swelling at day seven or later (77 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from three studies (386 participants) means we are uncertain of the finding of little difference between the two groups in return to function at day seven or later. There was low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (1504 participants) that NSAIDs may slightly increase the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with paracetamol. There was low-certainty evidence from nine studies (1679 participants) of little difference in neurological adverse events between the NSAID and paracetamol groups. Six studies, involving 1212 participants compared NSAIDs with opioids. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in pain at one hour (1058 participants, 4 studies), and low-certainty evidence for no difference in pain at days four or seven (706 participants, 1 study). There was very low-certainty evidence of no important difference between the groups in swelling (84 participants, 1 study). Participants in the NSAIDs group were more likely to return to function in 7 to 10 days (542 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence (1143 participants, 5 studies) that NSAIDs were less likely to result in gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events compared with opioids. Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day one (51 participants, 1 study), day three (149 participants, 2 studies), or day seven (138 participants, 2 studies); swelling (230 participants, 3 studies); return to function at day seven (89 participants, 1 study); and the risk of gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies). No studies reported re-injury rates. No studies compared NSAIDs with oral complementary and alternative medicines, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with paracetamol, NSAIDs make no difference to pain at one to two hours and at two to three days, and may make no difference at day seven or beyond. NSAIDs may result in a small increase in gastrointestinal adverse events and may make no difference in neurological adverse events compared with paracetamol. Compared with opioids, NSAIDs probably make no difference to pain at one hour, and may make no difference at days four or seven. NSAIDs probably result in fewer gastrointestinal and neurological adverse effects compared with opioids. The very low-certainly evidence for all outcomes for the NSAIDs versus paracetamol with opioid combination analgesics means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences in pain or adverse effects. The current evidence should not be extrapolated to adults older than 65 years, as this group was not well represented in the studies.

International Variability in Gastrointestinal Decontamination With Acute Poisonings.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identifying international differences in the management of acute pediatric poisonings may help improve the quality of care. The objective of this study was to assess the international variation and appropriateness of gastrointestinal decontamination (GID) procedures performed in children and adolescents who present with acute poisonings to emergency departments. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, cross-sectional prospective study including children <18 years with poisoning exposures presenting to 105 emergency departments in 20 countries from 8 global regions belonging to the Pediatric Emergency Research Networks. Data collection started between January and September 2013 and continued for 1 year. The appropriateness of GID procedures performed was analyzed using the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists' recommendations. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for performing GID procedures. RESULTS: We included 1688 patients, 338 of whom (20.0%, 95% confidence interval 18.1%-22.0%) underwent the following GID procedures: activated charcoal (166, 49.1%), activated charcoal and gastric lavage (122, 36.1%), gastric lavage (47, 13.9%), and ipecac (3, 0.9%). In 155 (45.8%, 40.5%-51.2%), the GID procedure was considered appropriate, with significant differences between regions. Independent risk factors for GID procedures included age, toxin category, mechanism of poisoning, absence of symptoms, and the region where the intoxication occurred (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Globally, there are substantial differences in the use and appropriateness of GID procedures in the management of pediatric poisonings. International best practices need to be better implemented.

Bell's Palsy in Children (BellPIC): protocol for a multicentre, placebo-controlled randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Bell's palsy or acute idiopathic lower motor neurone facial paralysis is characterized by sudden onset paralysis or weakness of the muscles to one side of the face controlled by the facial nerve. While there is high level evidence in adults demonstrating an improvement in the rate of complete recovery of facial nerve function when treated with steroids compared with placebo, similar high level studies on the use of steroids in Bell's palsy in children are not available. The aim of this study is to assess the utility of steroids in Bell's palsy in children in a randomised placebo-controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a randomised, triple-blinded, placebo controlled trial of the use of prednisolone to improve recovery from Bell's palsy at 1 month. Study sites are 10 hospitals within the Australian and New Zealand PREDICT (Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative) research network. 540 participants will be enrolled. To be eligible patients need to be aged 6 months to < 18 years and present within 72 hours of onset of clinician diagnosed Bell's palsy to one of the participating hospital emergency departments. Patients will be excluded in case of current use of or contraindications to steroids or if there is an alternative diagnosis. Participants will receive either prednisolone 1 mg/kg/day to a maximum of 50 mg/day or taste matched placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome is complete recovery by House-Brackmann scale at 1 month. Secondary outcomes include assessment of recovery using the Sunnybrook scale, the emotional and functional wellbeing of the participants using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and Child Health Utility 9D Scale, pain using Faces Pain Scale Revised or visual analogue scales, synkinesis using a synkinesis assessment questionnaire and health utilisation costs at 1, 3 and 6 months. Participants will be tracked to 12 months if not recovered earlier. Data analysis will be by intention to treat with primary outcome presented as differences in proportions and an odds ratio adjusted for site and age. DISCUSSION: This large multicenter randomised trial will allow the definitive assessment of the efficacy of prednisolone compared with placebo in the treatment of Bell's palsy in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000563561 (1 June 2015).

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute soft tissue injuries are common and costly. The best drug treatment for such injuries is not certain, although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often recommended. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (12 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014 Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2014), EMBASE (1980 to September 2014), CINAHL (1937 to November 2012), AMED (1985 to November 2012), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to November 2012), PEDro (1929 to November 2012), and SPORTDiscus (1985 to November 2012), plus internet search engines, trial registries and other databases. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and contacted authors of retrieved studies and pharmaceutical companies to obtain relevant unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving people with acute soft tissue injury (sprain, strain or contusion of a joint, ligament, tendon or muscle occurring up to 48 hours prior to inclusion in the study) and comparing oral NSAID versus paracetamol (acetaminophen), opioid, paracetamol plus opioid, or complementary and alternative medicine. The outcomes were pain, swelling, function, adverse effects and early re-injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 trials, with a total of 2144 participants. Two studies included children only. The other 14 studies included predominantly young adults, of whom over 60% were male. Seven studies recruited people with ankle sprains only. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of bias; however, two were at high risk of selection bias, three were at high risk of bias from lack of blinding, one was at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data, and four were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. The evidence was usually either low quality or very low quality, reflecting study limitations, indirectness such from as suboptimal dosing of single comparators, imprecision, or one or more of these. Thus we are either uncertain or very uncertain of the estimates.Nine studies, involving 991 participants, compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. While tending to favour paracetamol, there was a lack of clinically important differences between the two groups in pain at less than 24 hours (377 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), at days 1 to 3 (431 participants, 4 studies; low quality), and at day 7 or over (467 participants, 4 studies; low quality). A similar lack of difference between the two groups applied to swelling at day 3 (86 participants, 1 study; very low quality) and at day 7 or over (77 participants, 1 study; low quality). There was little difference between the two groups in return to function at day 7 or over (316 participants, 3 studies; very low quality): based on an assumed recovery of function of 804 per 1000 participants in the paracetamol group, 8 fewer per 1000 recovered in the NSAID group (95% confidence interval (CI) 80 fewer to 73 more). There was low-quality evidence of a lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse events in the paracetamol group: based on an assumed risk of gastrointestinal adverse events of 16 per 1000 participants in the paracetamol group, 13 more participants per 1000 had a gastrointestinal adverse event in the NSAID group (95% CI 0 to 35 more).Four studies, involving 958 participants, compared NSAIDs with opioids. Since a study of a selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID (valdecoxib) that was subsequently withdrawn from the market dominates the evidence for this comparison (706 participants included in the analyses for pain, function and gastrointestinal adverse events), the applicability of these results is in doubt and we give only a brief summary. There was low quality evidence for a lack of clinically important differences between the two groups regarding pain at less than 24 hours, at days 4 to 6, and at day 7. Evidence from single studies showed a similar lack of difference between the two groups for swelling at day 3 (68 participants) and day 10 (84 participants). Return to function at day 7 or over favoured the NSAID group (low-quality), and there were fewer gastrointestinal adverse events in the selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID group (very low quality).Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is partly in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. While the point estimates favoured NSAID, the very low-quality evidence did not show a difference between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day 1 (51 participants, 1 study), day 3 (149 participants, 2 studies), or day 7 (138 participants, 2 studies). Very low-quality evidence showed a similar lack of difference between the two groups applied to swelling at day 3 (reported in two studies) and at day 7 (reported in two studies), in return to function at day 7 (89 participants, 1 study), and in gastrointestinal adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies).No studies compared NSAIDs with complementary and alternative medicines, and no study reported re-injury rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is generally low- or very low-quality but consistent evidence of no clinically important difference in analgesic efficacy between NSAIDs and other oral analgesics. There is low-quality evidence of more gastrointestinal adverse effects with non-selective NSAID compared with paracetamol. There is low- or very low-quality evidence of better function and fewer adverse events with NSAIDs compared with opioid-containing analgesics; however, one study dominated this evidence using a now unavailable COX-2 selective NSAID and is of uncertain applicability. Further research is required to determine whether there is any difference in return to function or adverse effects between both non-selective and COX-2 selective NSAIDs versus paracetamol.