Management of fever and acute painful crises in children with sickle cell disease in emergency departments: a tertiary hospital experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) is highly prevalent in Saudi Arabia with variable demographics and access to health care facilities including emergency departments. Literature reviews for locally published articles are deficient in the in-depth evaluation of current emergency practices in managing patients with SCD. The study aims to assess the current emergency practice in managing SCD patients in tertiary hospitals. We reviewed data of 212 visits by patients with SCD over three years and assessed the current emergency department practices in managing common SCD crises, such as vaso-occlusive (VOC) and febrile episodes. Our findings revealed that 47.2%, 37.7%, and 15% of the patients presented with pain, fever, or both, respectively. The patients were triaged level III according to the Canadian triage and acuity scale system in 89% of the visits. The Median time for patients to see healthcare providers was 22 min. In the first 2 h, 86% of the patients received at least one fluid bolus and 79% of them received appropriate analgesia for pain crises. Approximately 41.5% of the patients with fever were admitted and received ceftriaxone as single intravenous antimicrobial agent. However, none of the patients had bacteremia. Only 2.4% of the patients had either urinary tract infection or osteomyelitis based on imaging. ED management is a key factor in the successful management of patients with SCD in a timely manner by providing fluids, analgesia, and antibiotics. Adopting evidence-based guidelines and avoiding unnecessary admissions are suggested in clinically well patients with fever in the era of completed vaccination, antibiotic prophylaxis, and good access to care for patients with a clear viral infection focus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".