Pediatric Constipation in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Limited knowledge exists surrounding the pharmacologic management of pediatric constipation in the emergency department (ED) setting and the success of interventions. Our primary objective was to determine whether enema administration is associated with 7-day ED revisits for persistent symptoms. Secondary objectives focused on assessing other predictors of ED revisits. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children <18 years old, diagnosed as having constipation (International Classification of Diseases-10 codes F98.1 nonorganic encopresis, K59.0 constipation) in a pediatric ED in Toronto, Canada, between November 2008 and October 2010. RESULTS: A total of 3592 visits were included; 6% (n = 225) were associated with a revisit. Children with revisits more frequently had vomiting (28% vs 17%, P = 0.001), more pain (5.7 ± 3.6 vs 4.6-3.6 of 10, P = 0.01), and underwent more blood tests (19% 05, 11%, 95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference 3%-14%] and diagnostic imaging (62% vs 47%, 95% CI of the difference 9%-22%). Children administered an enema were 1.54 times more likely to revisit the ED than those who did not receive an enema (8.6% vs 5.5%, 95% CI of the difference 1.1%-5.2%, P = 0.001). Type of enema administered varied by age (P < 0.001). Regression analysis identified the following independent predictors of revisits: diagnostic imaging (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% CI 1.15-2.06), vomiting (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.98), enema administration (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.05-1.88), and significant medical history (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.53). CONCLUSIONS: Enema administration and diagnostic imaging are associated with revisits in children diagnosed with constipation. Their role in the ED management of pediatric constipation requires further evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".