Cited by 45Gun Ownership and Violence ResearchInjury Epidemiology and PreventionTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

Pediatric gunshot wound recidivism: Identification of at-risk youth

Gibson, Peter D., Ippolito, Joseph A., Shaath, Mohammed Kareem, Campbell, Curtis L., Fox, Adam D., Ahmed, Irfan·2016·Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

Abstract

Background Although penetrating injury is the most common reason for pediatric trauma recidivism, there is a paucity of literature specifically looking at this population. The objective of this study was to identify those in the pediatric community at the highest levels of risk for experiencing gunshot wound (GSW) on multiple occasions. Methods A retrospective review querying our urban Level I trauma database was performed. Patients aged 0 year to 18 years sustaining GSW from 2000 to 2011 were selected. This was further refined to include those who returned to the hospital for another firearm injury. Demographic data, including age of initial and subsequent presentation, sex, race, zip code, home address, and disposition were compiled. Results During the 12-year study period, 896 pediatric patients were discharged from the hospital after initial firearm injury with subsequent 8.8% recidivism rate. All recidivists were male, and 86% were 16 years to 18 years old at the time of the first injury. The subsequent incident occurs within the first year, 2 years, and 3 years 32%, 53%, and 66% of the time, respectively. Nine individuals in our study group experienced GSW on three separate occasions, with a mortality rate of 22%. Regarding the domicile, 53% of the patients were located in a 3-sq mi area containing four public high schools. Conclusion Using demographic data, we have been able to identify an at-risk population where there is a greater than 1 in 12 chance of getting shot…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ta.0000000000001072

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The comprehensive and representative sample may account for the higher recurrent injury observed in this study compared to others reporting recurrent firearm injury ranging from one to 10% across a variety of clinical and geographic settings and time periods.

    “This may account for the higher recurrent injury observed in this study compared to others reporting recurrent firearm injury ranging from one to 10% across a variety of clinical and geographic settings and time periods.15,18,33-44”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gibson, P. D., Ippolito, J. A., Shaath, M. K., Campbell, C. L., Fox, A. D., & Ahmed, I.
Affiliations
University Hospital, Newark (US)
Venue
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Published
2016-06
Volume
80
Issue
6
Pages
877-883
ISSN
2163-0755 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2338060780
Cited by
45
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Gun Ownership and Violence Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Injury Epidemiology and Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
penetrating trauma, demographic risk factors, urban trauma, public secondary schools, resource allocation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Recurrence, Registries, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Trauma Centers, United States, Wounds, Gunshot

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review