Cited by 11Gastrointestinal motility and disordersEmergency and Acute Care StudiesPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Emergency Department Visits Related to Functional Abdominal Pain in the Pediatric Age Group

Abstract

To analyze visits to and admissions from the emergency department (ED) in children with a primary diagnosis of functional abdominal pain (FAP). This was a cross-sectional study using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (HCUP-NEDS 2008–2012). FAP-related ED visits were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The most frequent secondary diagnoses associated with FAP-related ED visits were also extracted. In 2012, a total of 796,665 children presented to the ED with a primary diagnosis of FAP. This correlated to a rate of 11.5 ED visits/1000 population. The highest incidence of ED visits was observed for children in the 10–14-year age group; median (IQR) age of 11 (8) years. In analyzing the temporal trends associated with FAP-related ED visits, we observed an increase in both the overall number of visits (14.0%) as well as the population-adjusted incidence (16.0%) during the period 2008–2012. This coincided with a decreasing trend in hospital admissions from the ED; from 1.4% in 2008 to 1.0% in 2012 (−28.5%). The overwhelming majority (96.7%) of patients with FAP who presented to the ED were treated and released. On multivariate analysis, the leading factor associated with an increased likelihood of admission from the ED was teaching hospital status (aOR 2.07; 95% CI 1.97 to 2.18). The secondary diagnosis most commonly associated with FAP-related ED visits was nausea and/or emesis (19.8%). Pediatric FAP-related ED visits increased significantly from the period 2008 to 2012. However, the incidence of hospital admissions from the ED declined during the same period.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jim-2016-000300

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
Pant, C., Deshpande, A., Sferra, T. J., Olyaee, M., & Bornstein, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Pant, Chaitanya
Venue
Journal of Investigative Medicine
Published
2017-04
Volume
65
Issue
4
Pages
803-806
ISSN
  • 1081-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1708-8267
OpenAlex
W2568522035
Cited by
11
References
8
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Investigative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
functional abdominal pain, pediatric patients, emergency department visits, hospitalization, temporal trends, teaching hospitals, secondary diagnoses, nausea and vomiting, emergency department utilization
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Demography, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Time Factors, Abdominal Pain, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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