Clinical features, management, and complications of paediatric button battery ingestions in Canada: an active surveillance study using surveys of Canadian paediatricians and paediatric subspecialists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Button battery ingestions pose a serious threat to paediatric health and are on the rise worldwide. Little is known about Canadian data. This study described the type of button battery ingestions Canadian paediatric physicians have observed, including treatment and complications. Methods A Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) survey was sent to paediatricians and paediatric subspecialists. The questions were developed through a literature review and consultation with 19 CPSP members, before piloting with 5 paediatric physicians. Descriptive analyses were conducted. Results The response rate was 39% (n = 1067/2716). Few were aware of treatment options with honey (n = 189/1067, 18%) and sucralfate (n = 118/1067, 11%). Two hundred and ninety-nine physicians (28%) had been involved in a case in the past 1 year (n = 132 case details). Children < 3 years were most affected (n = 67/132, 51%). In unwitnessed ingestions (n = 41/132, 31%), the most common symptoms were dysphagia (n = 14/41, 34%) and coughing (n = 10/41, 24%). When it was known where the child found the battery, it was most commonly loose in the environment (n = 34/132, 26%). Seventy per cent of patients (n = 92/132) presented within 6 h following the ingestion. Six per cent (n = 8/132) reported the battery eroding into important adjacent structures (eg, aorta and trachea). Interpretation A high degree of suspicion for button battery ingestion is needed in young children presenting with dysphagia and coughing. Prevention efforts should be aimed at battery disposal and security. There is a need for dissemination of guidelines to physicians caring for paediatric patients, since modifiable patient factors, such as honey and/or sucralfate administration while awaiting definitive treatment, can improve outcomes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".