Cited by 89Injury Epidemiology and PreventionPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Home safety measures and the risk of unintentional injury among young children: a multicentre case-control study

Open access
LeBlanc, J. C., Pless, I. B., King, W. J., Bawden, H., Bernard-Bonnin, A.-C., Klassen, T., Tenenbein, M.·2006·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Young children may sustain injuries when exposed to certain hazards in the home. To better understand the relation between several childproofing strategies and the risk of injuries to children in the home, we undertook a multicentre case-control study in which we compared hazards in the homes of children with and without injuries. METHODS: We conducted this case-control study using records from 5 pediatric hospital emergency departments for the 2-year period 1995-1996. The 351 case subjects were children aged 7 years and less who presented with injuries from falls, burns or scalds, ingestions or choking. The matched control subjects were children who presented during the same period with acute non-injury-related conditions. A home visitor, blinded to case-control status, assessed 19 injury hazards at the children's homes. RESULTS: Hazards found in the homes included baby walkers (21% of homes with infants), no functioning smoke alarm (17% of homes) and no fire extinguisher (51% of homes). Cases did not differ from controls in the mean proportion of home hazards. After controlling for siblings, maternal education and employment, we found that cases differed from controls for 5 hazards: the presence of a baby walker (odds ratio [OR] 9.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-71.0), the presence of choking hazards within a child's reach (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-3.7), no child-resistant lids in bathroom (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.5), no smoke alarm (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.7) and no functioning smoke alarm (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.8). INTERPRETATION: Homes of children with injuries differed from those of children without injuries in the proportions of specific hazards for falls, choking, poisoning and burns, with a striking difference noted for the presence of a baby walker. In addition to counselling parents about specific hazards, clinicians should consider that the presence of some hazards may indicate an increased risk for home injuries beyond those directly related to the hazard found. Families with any home hazard may be candidates for interventions to childproof against other types of home hazards.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1503/cmaj.050592

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Board of Review -Baby Walkers. Board of review inquiring into the nature and characteristics of baby walkers. Available: www.babywalkers-marchettes.ca (ac- cessed 2006 Jul 26).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
LeBlanc, J. C., Pless, I. B., King, W. J., Bawden, H., Bernard-Bonnin, A.-C., Klassen, T., & Tenenbein, M.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2006-10-10
Volume
175
Issue
8
Pages
883-887
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2168357921
Cited by
89
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 11
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Injury Epidemiology and Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
home injury prevention, childproofing, unintentional injuries, young children, home hazards, baby walkers, smoke detectors, choking hazards, burns, poisoning, falls, fire extinguishers
MeSH terms
Child, Child Welfare, Child, Preschool, Female, Housing, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Protective Devices, Risk Factors, Safety, Wounds and Injuries, Case-Control Studies

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