Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Inter-rater agreement of serial radiographs to identify non-progression of ingested multiple magnets in children
  1. Paediatric Surgery Trainee Research Network (PSTRN)
    1. Paediatric Surgery Trainee Research Network, London, UK
    1. Correspondence to Paediatric Surgery Trainee Research Network (PSTRN), Paediatric Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trus, Southampton, UK; jonathan.neville{at}nhs.net

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Multiple magnet ingestion (MMI) by children is increasing in incidence.1 Magnets can attract one another from different locations within the gastrointestinal tract, causing fistulae, perforation and an increased risk of segmental volvulus, meaning MMI is associated with a high rate of intervention.2 Most children are asymptomatic, so the decision to intervene is commonly determined by serial plain film radiographs (XRs) demonstrating the absence of progression.3 Current guidelines suggest repeating XRs every 6–12 hours.4

    This study aimed to investigate the inter-rater agreement of specialist paediatric surgeons assessing multiple magnet progression on serial XRs and to investigate whether there was variation in subsequent management. Surgeons were surveyed as they typically make the decision to intervene endoscopically or surgically.

    An online survey was disseminated to …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Collaborators Paediatric Surgery Trainee Research Network (PSTRN): Jonathan J Neville, Rachel Harwood, Emily Decker, Lucinda Tullie, Mary Patrice Eastwood, Georgina Bough, Nigel J Hall.

    • Contributors JJN, RH and ED conceived and designed the study. JJN collected and analysed the data. JJN drafted the manuscript. All authors were involved in the critical review and editing of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.