![]() The study is limited in that it is a retrospective single institution study. The sample size was small in regard to patients with seatbelt sign but no abdominal pain, limiting recommendations for clinical evaluation in this group.Ġ.9 (0.3, 2.4) P120 as predictor for Intestinal Peforation Relative Risk (RR) of SBS for gastrointestinal tract injuryĮvaluation bias was mentioned as a weakness in the paper, as patients with abnormal physical findings, including SBS, were more likely to undergo radiographic or surgical evaluation. Relevant Paper(s) Author, date and countryĬhildren 16 years of age and younger with blunt trauma at risk for intra-abdominal injury who presented to the ED following a motor vehicle collision over a two year time period. Limit to English language and all child (0–18 years).Įmbase: OR Ĭochrane: MeSH descriptor Seat Belts explode all trees.įifty-one papers were identified of which three were relevant to the clinical question and of sufficient quality for inclusion ![]() Ovid MEDLINE 1948 to November Week 2 2011Įmbase via NHS Evidence 1980-date of searching 21 November 2011 You wonder whether there is evidence to help you decide to discharge the patient, pursue additional imaging, or admit the child for observation/further intervention. His physical examination is unremarkable, except for the presence of bruising on the lower abdomen in the distribution of his lap belt, consistent with a ‘seat belt sign,’ (SBS). He was a restrained rear seated passenger involved in a head on crash at approximately 45 mph. In is the predictive of ? Clinical ScenarioĪ 9-year-old boy presents to the Emergency Department (ED) following a motor vehicle collision.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |