Obstetrical brachial plexus injury: burden in a publicly funded, universal healthcare system
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECT The aim of this study was to determine the volume and timing of referrals for obstetrical brachial plexus injury (OBPI) to multidisciplinary centers in a national demographic sample. Secondarily, we aimed to measure the incidence and risk factors for OBPI in the sample. The burden of OBPI has not been investigated in a publicly funded system, and the timing and volume of referrals to multidisciplinary centers are unknown. The incidence and risk factors for OBPI have not been established in Canada. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study. The authors used a demographic sample of all infants born in Canada, capturing all children born in a publicly funded, universal healthcare system. OBPI diagnoses and corresponding risk factors from 2004 to 2012 were identified and correlated with referrals to Canada's 10 multidisciplinary OBPI centers. Quality indicators were approved by the Canadian OBPI Working Group's guideline consensus group. The primary outcome was the timing of initial assessment at a multidisciplinary center, "good" if assessed by the time the patient was 1 month of age, "satisfactory" if by 3 months of age, and "poor" if thereafter. Joinpoint regression analysis was used to determine the OBPI incidence over the study period. Odds ratios were calculated to determine the strength of association for risk factors. RESULTS OBPI incidence was 1.24 per 1000 live births, and was consistent from 2004 to 2012. Potential biases underestimate the level of injury identification. The factors associated with a very strong risk for OBPI were humerus fracture, shoulder dystocia, and clavicle fracture. The majority (55%-60%) of OBPI patients identified at birth were not referred. Among those who were referred, the timing of assessment was "good" in 28%, "satisfactory" in 66%, and "poor" in 34%. CONCLUSIONS Shoulder dystocia was the strongest modifiable risk factor for OBPI. Most children with OBPI were not referred to multidisciplinary care. Of those who were referred, 72% were assessed later than the target quality indicator of 1 month that was established by the national guideline consensus group. A referral gap has been identified using quality indicators at clinically relevant time points; this gap should be addressed with the use of knowledge tools (e.g., a clinical practice guideline) to target variations in referral rates and clinical practice. Interventions should guide the referral process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».