Management of Pediatric Patients With Spontaneous Pneumomediastinum: A Retrospective Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the paucity of data on pediatric spontaneous pneumomediastinum (SPM), management is largely informed by extrapolation from adult studies or personal clinical experience, resulting in significant heterogeneity. The purpose of this study was to describe how pediatric patients with SPM are clinically managed at our institution and propose a treatment algorithm. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of pediatric patients with SPM from April 2002 to December 2021 at a single Canadian tertiary care center. Data on medical history, presentation characteristics, clinical management, and complications were gathered. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze data. RESULTS: We identified 63 patients for inclusion, median age was 15 years. Twenty-nine patients were transferred from another facility. Most common presenting symptoms were chest pain (72.3%), shortness of breath (44.6%), and subcutaneous emphysema (21.5%). Initial workup included chest x-ray (93.6%), CT scan (20.6%), and upper GI series (7.9%). There was no difference in the number of initial tests between admitted and discharged patients (p = 0.10). Of admitted patients (n = 35), 31.4% had primary SPM (no underlying comorbidity/inciting event) and 68.8% were secondary SPM (underlying comorbidity/inciting event). No patients with primary SPM developed complications or recurrences. In contrast, 16.7% of those with secondary SPM developed complications and 54.2% had at least one additional intervention after admission. DISCUSSION: There is significant variability in diagnostic investigation and treatment of pediatric SPM at our center. Amongst primary SPM, additional tests did not change complication rate or recurrence, including those transferred from another facility. An expeditious treatment algorithm is warranted. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective Cohort Study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".