Variation in Care for Children With Esophageal Varices: A Study of Physicians', Patients', and Families' Approaches and Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inadequate evidence to guide the management of children with esophageal varices may lead to variation in care and the provision of poor-quality care to some children. The aims of the study were to describe approaches taken by pediatric gastroenterologists for the management of esophageal varices in children, and to determine the attitudes of children, parents, and physicians toward screening endoscopy for identification of varices. METHODS: Canadian pediatric gastroenterologists and hepatologists were questioned about their approaches to screening for esophageal varices and therapy to prevent or treat variceal hemorrhage. Consecutive children with portal hypertension and their parents were surveyed about attitudes to screening endoscopy. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 72 (65%) physicians responded. Seventy percent of respondents screen for esophageal varices in selected children, most using endoscopy (77%). Fifty-eight percent of respondents who screen for varices would provide primary prophylactic treatment. Most would treat an acute variceal bleed with antibiotics, acid suppression, octreotide, and endoscopy within 24 hours (76%) and then secondary prophylaxis with endoscopic variceal ligation (96%) or β-blockers (28%). Among 29 families surveyed, 63% of parents and 50% of patients would agree to screening endoscopy to understand their risk of variceal bleeding and 67% if prophylactic therapy were available. Families were more concerned about the risk of endoscopic adverse events than were gastroenterologists. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric gastroenterologists vary in the care they provide for children at risk for esophageal varices and their attitudes toward the role of screening endoscopy differ from that of their patients. Further evidence is required to support practice guidelines that may reduce variation in care and thus improve its quality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".