0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The incidence of fractures in children under two years of age: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Epidemiological research on fractures in children under the age of two is of great importance to help understand differences between accidental and abusive trauma.

          Objective

          This systematic review aimed to evaluate studies reporting on the incidence of fractures in children under two years of age, excluding birth injuries. Secondary outcome measures included fracture location, mechanisms of injury and fracture characteristics.

          Methods

          A systematic literature review (1946 to February 7th 2024), including prospective and retrospective cohort studies and cross-sectional cohort studies, was performed. Studies including children from other age groups were included if the actual measures for those aged 0–2 years could be extracted. We also included studies restricted to infants. Annual incidence rates of fractures were extracted and reported as the main result. Critical appraisal of was performed using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies.

          Results

          Twelve moderate to good quality studies met eligibility criteria, of which seven were based on data from medical records and five were registry studies. Studies investigated different aspects of fractures, making comprehensive synthesis challenging. There was an overall annual fracture incidence rate of 5.3 to 9.5 per 1,000 children from 0–2 years of age; with commonest sites being the radius/ulna (25.2–40.0%), followed by tibia/fibula (17.3–27.6%) and the clavicle (14.6–14.8%) (location based on 3 studies with a total of 407 patients). In infants, the reported incidence ranged between 0.7 to 4.6 per 1,000 (based on 3 studies), with involvement of the clavicle in 22.2% and the distal humerus in 22.2% of cases (based on 1 study). Only a single metaphyseal lesion was reported (proximal humerus of an 11-month-old infant). Fracture mechanisms were detailed in four studies, with fall from chair, bed, table, own height or fall following indoor activities causing 50–60% of fractures.

          Conclusions

          There is a paucity of good quality data on fracture incidence in children under the age of two. Larger, prospective and unbiased studies would be helpful in determining normal pattern of injuries, so that differences from abusive trauma may be better understood.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-024-07633-5.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

              Objectives The aim of this study was to develop a critical appraisal (CA) tool that addressed study design and reporting quality as well as the risk of bias in cross-sectional studies (CSSs). In addition, the aim was to produce a help document to guide the non-expert user through the tool. Design An initial scoping review of the published literature and key epidemiological texts was undertaken prior to the formation of a Delphi panel to establish key components for a CA tool for CSSs. A consensus of 80% was required from the Delphi panel for any component to be included in the final tool. Results An initial list of 39 components was identified through examination of existing resources. An international Delphi panel of 18 medical and veterinary experts was established. After 3 rounds of the Delphi process, the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) was developed by consensus and consisted of 20 components. A detailed explanatory document was also developed with the tool, giving expanded explanation of each question and providing simple interpretations and examples of the epidemiological concepts being examined in each question to aid non-expert users. Conclusions CA of the literature is a vital step in evidence synthesis and therefore evidence-based decision-making in a number of different disciplines. The AXIS tool is therefore unique and was developed in a way that it can be used across disciplines to aid the inclusion of CSSs in systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical decision-making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                karen.rosendahl@unn.no
                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2474
                9 July 2024
                9 July 2024
                2024
                : 25
                : 528
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Clinical Medicine, UiT the Artic University of Norway, ( https://ror.org/00wge5k78) Tromsø, Norway
                [2 ]Department of Radiology, University Hospital of North Norway, ( https://ror.org/030v5kp38) Pb 100, Tromsø, 9038 Norway
                [3 ]Department of Imaging, IRCCS Bambino Gesù Children‘s Hospital, ( https://ror.org/02sy42d13) Rome, Italy
                [4 ]Pediatric Radiology Unit, Radiology Division, Diagnostic Department, University Hospitals of Geneva, ( https://ror.org/01m1pv723) Geneva, Switzerland
                [5 ]Department of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, ( https://ror.org/03zydm450) Great Ormond Street, London, England
                [6 ]Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, ( https://ror.org/00zn2c847) London, England
                [7 ]NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, ( https://ror.org/033rx1153) Bloomsbury, London, England
                [8 ]Department of Radiology, St. George’s Hospital, ( https://ror.org/02507sy82) London, England
                [9 ]Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, ( https://ror.org/05n3x4p02) Wien, Austria
                [10 ]Department of Pediatric Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, ( https://ror.org/00m8d6786) Stockholm, Sweden
                [11 ]Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institute, ( https://ror.org/056d84691) Solna, Sweden
                [12 ]University Library, Bergen University, ( https://ror.org/03zga2b32) Bergen, Norway
                [13 ]Clinical Radiology Institute, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, ( https://ror.org/01nr6fy72) Ljubljana, Slovenia
                [14 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, ( https://ror.org/05njb9z20) Ljubljana, Slovenia
                [15 ]Section for Paediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, ( https://ror.org/03np4e098) Bergen, Norway
                [16 ]Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, ( https://ror.org/03zga2b32) Bergen, Norway
                [17 ]Department of Radiology, “Reine Fabiola” Children’s University Hospital Université Libre de Bruxelles, ( https://ror.org/01r9htc13) Brussels, Belgium
                [18 ]GRID grid.7177.6, ISNI 0000000084992262, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC, , University of Amsterdam, ; Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [19 ]Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield, ( https://ror.org/05krs5044) Sheffield, England
                Article
                7633
                10.1186/s12891-024-07633-5
                11232341
                38982362
                939afeb3-efdc-4945-b88d-bc9a0aa96d3d
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 13 April 2023
                : 27 June 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: UiT The Arctic University of Norway (incl University Hospital of North Norway)
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Orthopedics
                fracture,infant,children,incidence,paediatric
                Orthopedics
                fracture, infant, children, incidence, paediatric

                Comments

                Comment on this article