Pediatric Hand Injuries Requiring Closed Reduction at a Tertiary Pediatric Care Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hand fractures and dislocations are common injuries in the pediatric population. This study aims to characterize the pediatric hand injuries that required closed reduction and identify those that required multiple reduction attempts. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out in patients younger than 18 years of age with hand fractures or dislocations who underwent closed reduction in the emergency department (ED). Patients who ultimately required surgical reduction and fixation were not included. Results: Of the 310 hand injuries identified, 148 (114 fractures and 34 dislocations) underwent closed reduction in the ED; 7.4% of those required repeat reduction. Hand injuries that most often required repeat reduction included metacarpophalangeal joint dislocations (20.0%) and proximal phalanx neck (16.7%), metacarpal shaft (15.4%), metacarpal neck (6.2%), and proximal phalanx base (5.6%) fractures. No modifiable risk factors predicting the need for repeat reduction were identified. Conclusions: Some pediatric hand injuries are more likely to require repeat closed reduction by a hand surgeon. This retrospective study is the first step toward quality improvement as it provides opportunities for further research into the factors contributing to reductions that are unsuccessful at the first attempt. Identification of these factors and implementation of quality improvement measures are necessary to ensure the effective treatment of all pediatric hand injuries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".