Injuries from falling out of bed in infants under 1 year of age: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Falls from beds are a leading cause of unintentional injuries in infants under 1 year of age. While most cases result in mild outcomes, the potential for severe injuries, such as skull fractures or intracranial haemorrhages, exists. Despite the prevalence of these incidents, no systematic review has focused specifically on injuries from bed falls in this specific age. Objective To evaluate the risk and severity of injuries caused by falls from beds in infants under 1 year of age through a systematic review. Data sources We searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Lilacs Scielo for studies published between 1984 and December 2024. Study selection We included observational studies that reported injuries from falls from beds in infants under 1 year. Data extraction We extracted the relevant data from the included study details, recruitment setting, study design, sample size and outcome measures. We conducted a quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Out of 297 initially identified studies, three met inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 2034 infants under 1 year of age. Most falls resulted in minor or no injuries. Warrington et al reported <1% of cases leading to concussion or fractures. Samuel et al identified two cases of intracranial haemorrhage and linear skull fractures without intervention. Kolulu et al observed significant injuries, including skull fractures and cerebral contusions, in 10.2% of infants. Conclusions Falls from beds are frequent in infants under 1 year, with most resulting in minor outcomes. However, serious injuries occur in around 5% of infants below 1-year old, emphasising the need for prevention strategies and clinical guidelines for managing post-fall assessments. Further research is required to refine understanding and improve prevention and management practices. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024626255.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".