Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Pediatrics and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Treatment in the pediatric emergency department is evidence based: a retrospective analysis

Kellie L Waters1*, Natasha Wiebe2, Kristie Cramer2, Lisa Hartling2 and Terry P Klassen2

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

2 Alberta Research Centre for Child Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Pediatrics 2006, 6:26  doi:10.1186/1471-2431-6-26

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/6/26


Received:20 May 2006
Accepted:6 October 2006
Published:6 October 2006

© 2006 Waters et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Our goal was to quantify the evidence that is available to the physicians of a pediatric emergency department (PED) in making treatment decisions. Further, we wished to ascertain what percentage of evidence for treatment provided in the PED comes from pediatric studies.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of randomly selected patients seen in the PED between January 1 and December 31, 2002. The principal investigator identified a primary diagnosis and primary intervention for each chart. A thorough literature search was then undertaken with respect to the primary intervention. If a randomized control trial (RCT) or a systematic review was found, the intervention was classified as level I evidence. If no RCT was found, the intervention was assessed by an expert committee who determined its appropriateness based on face validity (RCTs were unanimously judged to be both unnecessary and, if a placebo would have been involved, unethical). These interventions were classified as level II evidence. Interventions that did not fall into either above category were classified as level III evidence.

Results

Two hundred and sixty-two patient charts were reviewed. Of these, 35.9% did not receive a primary intervention. Of the 168 interventions assessed, 80.4% were evidence-based (level I), 7.1% had face validity (level II) and 12.5% had no supporting evidence (level III). Of the evidence-based interventions, 83.7% were supported by studies with mostly pediatric patients.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that a substantial proportion of PED treatment decisions are evidence-based, with most based on studies in pediatric patients. Also, a large number of patients seen in the PED receive no intervention.

Background

The term "evidence-based medicine" has become a catchphrase for the twenty-first century. Physicians are being called upon to justify their treatment decisions with valid, up-to-date evidence. There have been attempts within many areas of medicine to quantify the evidence that is available to, and used by, the physicians of that discipline. The first such study, conducted by Ellis et al [1] in 1995, found that 82% of treatments in internal medicine were evidence-based. This study has been replicated among a variety of disciplines, including family medicine [2] (81% evidence-based interventions), hematology [3] (70% evidence-based interventions), and surgery [4] (45% interventions based on randomized control trial [RCT] evidence or better).

Within pediatrics, there have been three such studies. Moyer et al [5] examined pediatric inpatients and found that 75% of primary interventions were supported by evidence. Rudolf et al [6] found 40% of clinical actions in a community-based pediatric practice were supported by RCT evidence and 7% were supported by convincing non-experimental evidence. In a study of pediatric surgical patients, Baraldini et al [7] found that only 29% of their treatments were based on level I or II evidence, as defined by Ellis et al (described below).

There is a need to investigate whether and to what extent the treatment of pediatric emergency patients is based on evidence. The wide variety of ailments seen within this area should offer a more comprehensive assessment of the overall state of evidence within pediatrics – encompassing surgical, outpatient and inpatient medicine, across all ages. At the same time, we need to gain an understanding of the quality and quantity of evidence in existence to support pediatric clinical decisions. How often is adult evidence generalized to the treatment of children? This is an important issue given that children differ from adults in terms of their physiology, biology, and developmental processes. There is limited health information available from research in children and, as a result, health care providers repeatedly turn to other sources of evidence, such as adult studies, to assist with managing health care issues in children [8].

In the present study, we sought to identify the extent to which evidence exists for use within the unique environment of the pediatric emergency department. A secondary objective was to determine the amount of evidence, applied to pediatrics, that is derived from adult studies. We hypothesized, a priori, that this was a common practice within pediatrics. Our hope was to identify areas within the body of evidence for pediatric emergency medicine that require future study.

Methods

This study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board at our institution.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of randomly selected patient charts based on patients seen in a Pediatric Emergency Department at a tertiary care facility during the 2002 year (January 1 to December 31). The sampling frame was created using the Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) database. The following variables: hospital record number, patient hospital number, patient visit number, date, time, and age made up the sampling frame. A random sample of patient visits were then generated using random-number computer software (S-plus 6.0). Any individual patient was included only once in the sample. A sample size calculation of 295 showed that a minimum of 5.6% precision would be achieved for any given estimate of percentage. The primary investigator (PI) retrospectively reviewed the sampled records and, using a standardized abstraction form, identified a primary diagnosis and primary intervention for each based on the definition set out by Ellis et al. That is, the primary diagnosis was defined as "the disease, syndrome or condition entirely or, if there were several diagnoses, [the diagnosis] most responsible for the patient's [visit to the pediatric emergency department]" [1]. The PI used information from the emergency physician's notes, lab and radiographic results, and any other relevant documentation from the emergency room visit to establish this. If conflicting information was present on the chart, the final diagnosis, as described at the bottom of the emergency record form, was used.

The primary intervention was taken to be "the treatment or other maneuver that represented our most important attempt to cure, alleviate, or care for the patient [with respect to] his or her primary diagnosis" [1]. This was also determined by the PI based on the patient's chart.

A thorough literature search was then undertaken with respect to the primary interventions. Current (at the time of searching) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched comprehensively to determine if any evidence existed with respect to the individual primary interventions. Abstracts and references of relevant scientific papers were also searched. Local experts were contacted and asked if they were aware of RCTs in existence that had not yet been published or that were not found through the search strategy (this step yielded no additional information).

The primary interventions were then divided into the following categories that have been used in previous research [1-4].

Level I evidence

The abstract or paper demonstrated that this intervention had been evaluated in an RCT, systematic review or meta-analysis. No attempt was made to rate the quality of the study or its findings as this did not relate directly to our goal of determining the quantity of evidence available to PED physicians.

Level II evidence

No abstract or paper could be found that investigated this intervention in an RCT, systematic review or meta-analysis. However, a committee determined there to be convincing non-RCT evidence for this intervention. That is, the face validity of such an intervention was considered to be so great that randomized trials were unanimously judged to be unnecessary or, if a placebo were to be involved, potentially harmful (i.e., giving a blood transfusion to a patient who was exsanguinating [1]). The committee for this study was made up of five pediatric emergency physicians with extensive experience in pediatric emergency medicine and evidence-based medicine, one of whom was a co-investigator. The remainder of the committee had no other involvement in the study and was provided with only the definitions of the levels of evidence and a brief synopsis of the patient visit. Only unanimous committee decisions were considered sufficient for the inclusion of the intervention as level II evidence.

Level III evidence

No abstract or paper could be found that involved this intervention in an RCT, systematic review or meta-analysis and the committee did not unanimously agree that there was convincing non-RCT evidence to support it.

Level I evidence was further subdivided into those studies that included a majority (i.e., more than 50%) of pediatric patients and those that did not. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included under the "pediatric studies" grouping if they included one RCT of predominantly pediatric patients. Every attempt was made to search out pediatric studies, even if an adult RCT was found first for any given intervention.

A further category was included of those patients who received no primary intervention. This category included patients who were discharged from the pediatric emergency department after receiving only reassurance and/or advice. The percentage of primary interventions which were included in each category was calculated as was the percentage of primary interventions deemed to be from pediatric and adult studies, along with their exact 95% confidence intervals [9].

Results

From the 18,855 patient visits to the PED during the year January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002, a random sample of 295 patient charts was computer generated, representing approximately 1% of patient visits. Any individual patient was only included once in the sample. Of these 295 charts, 272 (92.2%) were available to be viewed. The other 23 were missing from the chart area. Of the 272, 10 were discarded because of insufficient information to determine a primary diagnosis and intervention (i.e. the emergency record was missing from the chart). Ninety-four patients received no intervention, representing 35.9% of our sample (95% CI 29.9 to 41.9).

Table 1 lists the interventions that qualified as level I evidence, based on the finding of at least one RCT or SR. In total, 135 patients were found to have received evidence-based interventions (level I evidence), representing 80.4% (CI 73.4 to 85.9) of patients who received interventions and 51.5% of our sample.

Table 1. Diagnoses and Interventions seen in the PED for which there is Level I Evidence

The most common interventions were analgesics for musculoskeletal pain (17/135 = 12.6%) and inhaled beta-agonist for asthma exacerbations (12/135 = 8.9%); both were supported by pediatric RCTs. Out of the 135 patients who received interventions that were based on level I evidence, 113 patients' interventions (83.7%; CI 76.1 to 89.3) were supported by pediatric RCTs.

The interventions unanimously determined, by the five person committee of pediatric emergency department (PED) physicians, to be worthy of level II evidence status are listed in Table 2. Overall, 7.1% (CI 3.9 to 12.4) of interventions, representing 4.6% of the sample, had face validity worthy of level II evidence.

Table 2. Diagnoses and Interventions seen in the PED for which there is Level II Evidence

Including level I and II evidence, 87.5% (CI 81.3 to 91.9) of interventions can be considered evidence-based.

Those interventions which were not considered to be evidence-based (level III evidence) are listed in Table 3. Twelve point five percent (CI 8.1 to 18.7) of interventions (8.0% of the sample) fit into this category.

Table 3. Diagnoses and Interventions seen in the PED for which there is Level III Evidence

Discussion

The results of this study are important for several reasons. First, we have shown that a substantial proportion of the children seen in the PED do not receive any treatment or intervention. In this sample of 1.4% of all PED visits over one year, 35.9% of children received only reassurance or advice. One of the most common reasons that children were seen in the PED without intervention was upper respiratory tract infection (26%) (data not shown), usually associated with fever. This leaves one wondering whether parental education about benign fever and supportive care for upper respiratory tract infection could help shorten PED wait times. Studies on the effect of education in this area could have very important beneficial effects in terms of costs to the healthcare system.

Our study has revealed that a great majority of interventions in the PED are based on pediatric studies (83.7%). Although this is a positive finding, there are several areas of pediatric medicine, such as migraine treatment and fracture management, for which treatment continues to be based on adult studies. Ideally, we would like to see 100% of pediatric interventions based on pediatric studies.

A comparison of our results to similar studies is shown in Table 4. Interestingly, our total "evidence-based" interventions (level I and II) at 56.1% is substantially less than that found in similar studies in inpatient general medicine [1] (82%) and inpatient pediatrics [5] (75%). However, a closer look reveals that the discrepancy between this and previous studies is not in the number of interventions which involved an RCT (51.5% vs. 53% for Ellis and 31% for Moyer) but in the number of interventions meeting the criteria for level II evidence (4.6% vs. 29% for Ellis and 44% for Moyer).

If one compares what was categorized as level II evidence by Moyer's study with our study, there are important differences. For example, interventions such as IV rehydration and antibiotics for urinary tract infection, categorized as level II evidence in the Moyer study, were classified as level I evidence in our study. This may be a reflection of the four year difference between studies and the accumulation of research evidence during that time. Alternatively, our study involved not only inpatients, but also patients discharged directly from the PED. Therefore, interventions which have been better studied such as antibiotics for otitis media [13] and glucocorticoids for croup [19] were included in our study. There were also differences with respect to those interventions that were considered to be worthy of level II evidence status by Dr Moyer's group and which our group relegated to level III evidence. This may simply be due to the degree of specificity involved in labeling interventions. Antibiotics for pneumonia and cellulitis were two such examples. Although our group refused to agree that intravenous antibiotics were required for these diagnoses, they certainly agreed treating a bacterial infection with some form of antibiotics was completely valid. It is interesting to note that something as simple as inserting the label "IV" or "PO" into the intervention could affect the level of evidence that treatment attained.

Table 4. Levels of evidence for interventions across different disciplines

The limitations of this study are similar to those found with the studies previously carried out in other disciplines [1-5]. Certainly, there was the potential for the committee to be biased when assigning the level of evidence based on personal knowledge of the cases or personal treatment preferences. This situation was minimized by employing a committee of five physicians and requiring group unanimity for placing an intervention in the level II category. One might argue that all members of the committee had an inclination to prefer to categorize interventions as level II, simply based on their own positions as PED physicians. However, this was not proven true as we had substantially fewer interventions placed in the level II category compared to previous studies.

Another potential limitation is derived from the inclusion of interventions under the category of level I evidence without interpreting the results of the RCT. This was done in order to compare our results to the original study by Ellis which, likewise, did not comment on the content of level I evidence.

Finally, while this was a random sample, it represented only 1% of all PED patients seen over the course of a year, therefore it provides an estimate of the proportion of PED treatments that are evidence-based but may not be representative of the full spectrum of different presenting conditions.

There were many strengths of our study when compared to previous studies. The relative inflexibility of our expert panel in committing interventions to the level II evidence group is one positive feature. Although there must be subjectivity in a process such as this, our team was quite rigorous in applying the criteria for this category and limited what must be assigned to this group accordingly. This is reflected in the lower percentage of interventions ranked as level II evidence by our committee (5% compared to 44% in the Moyer study [5]) than those previous. When consensus surrounding the validity of a treatment without RCT evidence is sufficient to warrant the label "level II evidence", certainly there should be a very limited number of interventions that will fit into this category. Another strength was that our study sample was derived from a full year of PED visits which would account for seasonal variation of presenting diagnoses. This made for a more accurate representation of the most common diagnoses and interventions seen within the pediatric emergency department. We would expect the results of our 1% sample to be relatively generalizable to any tertiary care pediatric centre. Finally, the search for evidence was exhaustive, making it unlikely that relevant RCTs, which had been published at the time of this study, were simply not found during the literature search.

Conclusion

We have shown that a surprisingly large proportion of patients seen in the pediatric emergency department (35.9%) receive no intervention, while approximately half of patients in this setting receive interventions that are based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (level I evidence). The vast majority of these are derived from randomized control trials containing a majority of pediatric patients. Although our study speaks positively of the breadth of knowledge within the unique environment of the pediatric emergency department, we have also identifed numerous important areas for future study within pediatric research.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

TK conceived the study. KW, KC, NW, LH and TK designed the study. KW and KC obtained research funding. KW and KC supervised and conducted the data collection. KW managed the data, including quality control. NW provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data. KW drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. KW takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of our expert panel: Dr R Arent, Dr T Turner, Dr S Jou & Dr B Wright.

Financial Support for this study was received from the Stollery Children's Hospital Foundation.

References

  1. Ellis J, Mulligan I, Rowe J, Sackett DL, On behalf of the A-Team: Inpatient general medicine is evidence based.

    Lancet 1995, 346:407-410. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  2. Gill P, Dowell AC, Neal RD, Smith N, Heywood P, Wilson AE: Evidence based general practice: a retrospective study of interventions in one training practice.

    BMJ 1996, 312:819-821. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  3. Galloway M, Baird G, Lennard A: Haematologists in district general hospitals practice evidence based medicine.

    Clin Lab Haem 1997, 19:243-248. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  4. Kingston R, Barry M, Tierney S, Drumm J, Grace P: Treatment of surgical patients is evidence based.

    Eur J Surg 2001, 167:324-330. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  5. Moyer VA, Gist AK, Elliott EJ: Is the practice of paediatric inpatient medicine evidence-based?

    Pediatr Child Health 2002, 38:347-351. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  6. Rudolf MC, Lyth N, Bundle A, Rowland G, Kelly A, Bosson S, Garner M, Guest P, Khan M, Thazin R, Bennett T, Damman D, Cove V, Kaur V: A search for the evidence supporting community paediatric practice.

    Arch Dis Child 1999, 80:257-261. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  7. Baraldini V, Spitz L, Pierro A: Evidence-based operations in pediatric surgery.

    Pediatr Surg Int 1998, 13:331-335. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  8. Cramer K, Wiebe N, Moyer V, Hartling L, Williams K, Swingler G, Klassen TP: Children in reviews: methodological issues in child-relevant evidence synthesis.

    BMC Pediatrics 2005, 5:38. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  9. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd edition. New York, Wiley; 1981. OpenURL

  10. Clark E, Plint A, Correl R, Gaboury I, Passi B: Analgesia for musculoskeletal injuries in children. A randomized, blinded, controlled trial comparing acetaminophen, ibuprofen and codeine.

    Pediatric Academic Society Annual Meeting Seattle Wa 2003. OpenURL

  11. Travers A, Jones AP, Kelly K, Barker SJ, Camargo CA Jr, Rowe BH: Intravenous beta2-agonists for acute asthma in the emergency department.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001, (2):CD002988. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  12. McLauchlan GJ, Cowan B, Annan IH, Robb JE: Management of completely displaced metaphyseal fractures of the distal radius in children.

    J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002, 84-B:413-417. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  13. Kozyrskyj AL, Hildes-Ripstein GE, Longstaffe SEA, Wincott JL, Sitar DS, Klassen TP, Moffatt MEK: Short course antibiotics for acute otitis media.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000, (2):CD001095. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  14. Atherly-John YC, Cunningham SJ, Crain EF: A randomized trial of oral vs. intravenous rehydration in a pediatric emergency department.

    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002, 156(12):1240-1243. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  15. Kellner JD, Ohlsson A, Gadomski AM, Wang EEL: Bronchodilators for bronchiolitis.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000, (2):CD001266. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  16. Hoberman A, Wald ER, Hickey RWM, Charron M, Majd M, Kearney DH, Reynolds EA, Ruley J, Janosky JE: Oral versus initial intravenous therapy for urinary tract infections in young febrile children.

    Pediatrics 1999, 104:79-86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  17. Dahshan A, Lin CH, Peters J, Thomas R, Tolia V: A randomized, prospective study to evaluate the efficacy and acceptance of three bowel preparations for colonoscopy in children.

    Am J Gastroenterol 1999, 94(12):3497-3501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  18. Barnett P, Jarman FC, Goodge J, Silk G, Aickin R: Randomised trial of histoacryl blue tissue adhesive glue versus suturing in the repair of pediatric lacerations.

    J Pediatr Child Health 1998, 34(6):548-550. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  19. Ausejo M, Saenz A, Pham BJD, Johnson DW, Moher D, Klassen TP: Glucocorticoids for croup.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000, (2):CD001955. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  20. Bass JW, Steele RW, Wittler RR, Weisse ME, Bell V, Heisser AH, Brien JH, Fajardo JE, Wasserman GM, Vincent JM: Antimicrobial treatment of occult bacteremia: a multicenter cooperative study.

    Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993, 12(6):466-473. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  21. Del Mar CB, Glasziou PP, Spinks AB: Antibiotics for sore throat.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000, (4):CD000023. OpenURL

  22. Simons FER, Johnston L, Simons KJ: Clinical pharmacology of the H1-receptor antagonists cetirizine and loratadine in children.

    Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2000, 11(2):116-119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  23. Newburger JW, Takahashi M, Burns JC, Beiser AS, Chung KJ, Duffy CE, Glode MP, Mason WH, Reddy V, Sanders SP: The treatment of kawasaki syndrome with intravenous gamma globulin.

    NEJM 1986, 315(6):341-347. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  24. Gausche-Hill M, Lewis RJ, Gunter CS, Henderson DP, Haynes BE, Stratton SJ: Design and implementation of a controlled trial of pediatric endotracheal intubation in the out-of-hospital setting.

    Ann Emerg Med 2000, 36(4):356-365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  25. Booth F, Buckley D, Camfield C, Camfield P, Darwish H, Dooley J, Farrell K, Gordon K, Hwang P, Langevin P, Larbrisseau A, Lowry N, Meek D, Munn R, Reggin J, Ronen G, Sinclair B, Tibbles J, Whiting S, Wilfong A, Yager J, Stewart J: Clobazam has equivalent efficacy to carbamazepine and phenytoin as monotherapy for childhood epilepsy.

    Epilepsia 1998, 39(9):952-959. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  26. Macias CG, Bothner J, Wiebe R: A comparison of supination/flexion to hyperpronation in the reduction of radial head subluxations.

    Pediatrics 1998, 102(1):e10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  27. Ruddy J, Proops DW, Pearman K, Ruddy H: Management of epistaxis in children.

    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1991, 21(2):139-142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  28. Dishion TJ, Andrews DW: Preventing escalation in problem behaviors with high risk young adolescents: immediate and 1-year outcomes.

    J Counsult Clin Psychol 1995, 63(4):538-548. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  29. Menon K, Sutcliffe T, Klassen TP: A randomized trial comparing the efficacy of epinephrine with salbutamol in the treatment of acute bronchioloitis.

    J Pediatr 1995, 126(6):1004-1007. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  30. Isenberg SJ, Apt L, Valenton M, Del Signore M, Cubillan L, Labrador MA, Chan P, Berman NG: A controlled trial of povidone-iodine to treat infectious conjunctivitis in children.

    Amer J Ophthalmol 2002, 134(5):681-688. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  31. Medeiros I, Saconato H: Antibiotic prophylaxis for mammalian bites.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001, (2):CD001738. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  32. Desai MH, Rutan RL, Herndon DN: Conservative treatment of scald burns is superior to early excision.

    J Burn Care Rehabil 1991, 12:482-484. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  33. Craig WR, Sinclair CJD, Hanlon-Dearman AC, Taback SP, Moffatt MEK: Metoclopramide, thickened feedings and positioning for gastro-oesphageal reflux in children under 2 years.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004, (4):CD003502. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  34. Hendrickson M, Myre L, Johnson DG, Matlak ME, Black RE, Sullivan JJ: Postoperative analgesia in children: a prospective study of intermittent intramuscular injection versus continuous intravenous infusion of morphine.

    J Pediatr Surg 1990, 25(2):185-191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  35. Cucchiara S, Minella R, Iervolino C, Franco MT, Campanozzi A, Franceschi M, D'Armiento F, Auricchio S: Omeprazole and high dose ranitidine in the treatment of refractory reflux oesophaagitis.

    Arch Dis Child 1993, 69(6):655-659. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  36. Klassen TP, Belseck EM, Wiebe N, Hartling L: Acyclovir for treating varicella in otherwise healthy children and adolescents.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002, (4):CD002980. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  37. Alonso FF, Mendes AP, De Sa BC, Nappo V: Comparative efficacy and tolerability between 0.1% mometasone furoate cream and 1% hydrocortisone cream for corticoid sensitive treatment in pediatry.

    Anais Brasileiros Dermatologia 1999, 74(4):351-355. OpenURL

  38. Daum RS, Glode MP, Goldmann DA, Halsey N, Ambrosino D, Welborn C, Mather FJ, Willard JE, Sullivan B, Murray M, Johansen T: Rifampin chemoprophylaxis for household contacts of patients with invasive infections due to Haemophilus influenzae type B.

    J Pediatr 1981, 98(3):485-491. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  39. Nikku R, Nietosvaara Y, Kallio PE, Aalto K, Michelsson J: Operative versus closed treatment of primary dislocation of the patella.

    Acta Orthop Scand 1997, 68(5):419-423. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  40. Colman I, Innes G, Brown MD, Roberts T, Grafstein E, Rowe BH: Parenteral metoclopramide for acute migraine.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003, (2):CD003972. OpenURL

  41. Gibson JN, Handoll HH, Madhok R: Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003, (4):CD000434. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  42. Phillips WA, Schwartz HS, Keller CS, Woodward HR, Rudd WS, Spiegel PG, Laros GS: A prospective, randomized study of the management of severe ankle fractures.

    J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985, 67(1):67-678. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  43. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, Delaney B, Innes M, Forman D: Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003, (1):CD001960. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  44. Andersen K, Jensen PO, Lauritzen J: Treatment of clavicular fractures. Figure-of eight bandage versus simple sling.

    Acta Orthop Scand 1987, 58(1):71-74. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  45. Yeates PJ, Thomas SH: Effectiveness of delayed activated charcoal administration in simulated paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose.

    Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000, 49(1):11-14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  46. Wyrsch B, McFerran MA, McAndrew M, Limbird TJ, Harper MC, Johnson KD, Schwartz HS: Operative treatment of fractures of the tibial plafond. A randomized, prospective study.

    J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996, 78(1):1646-1657. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  47. Redfern TR, English PJ, Haumber CD, McGhie D: The aetiology and management of acute epididymitis.

    Br J Surg 1984, 71:703-705. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  48. Dunner DL, Ishiki D, Avery DH, Wilson LG, Hyde TS: Effect of alprazolam and diazepam on anxiety and panic attacks in panic disorder: a controlled study.

    J Clin Psychiatry 1986, 47(9):458-460. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  49. Saxen MA, Ambrosius WT, Rehemtula al-KF, Russell AL, Eckert GJ: Sustained relief of oral aphthous ulcer pain from topical diclofenac in hyaluronan: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

    Oral Surgery Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 1997, 84(4):356-361. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  50. Shen WJ, Liu TJ, Shen YS: Nonoperative treatment versus posterior fixation for thoracolumbar junction burst fractures without neurological deficit.

    Spine 2001, 26(9):1038-1045. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  51. Gillies D, Beck A, McCloud A: Benzodiazepines alone or in combination with antipsychotic drugs for acute psychosis (Protocol).

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001, (2):CD003079. OpenURL

  52. Abdel-Salem A, Eyres KS, Cleary J: Internal fixation of closed tibial fractures for the management of sports injuries.

    Br J Sports Med 1991, 25(4):213-217. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  53. Brok J, Buckley N, Gluud C: Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdoses.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002, (3):CD003328. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  54. Kadakia SC, Cassaday M, Shaffer RT: Comparison of foley catheter as a replacement gastrostomy tube with commercial replacement gastrostomy tube: a prospective randomized trial.

    Gastrointest Endosc 1994, 40(2I):188-193. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  55. Schierhout G, Roberts I: Mannitol for acute traumatic brain injury.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003, (2):CD001049. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  56. Bussone G, Grazzi L, D'Amico D, Manzoni C, Granella F, Cortelli P, Pierangeli G, Canal N, Colombo B, Frediani F, Maltempo C, Peruzzi E, Edson K, Ezzet N, Huels J: Acute treatment of migraine attacks: efficacy and safety of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, diclofenac-potassium, in comparison to oral sumatriptan and placebo.

    Cephalalgia 1999, 19(4):232-240. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/6/26/prepub