3.8 Article

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Paronychias in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System 1999-2018

期刊

SKIN APPENDAGE DISORDERS
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 454-461

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000525032

关键词

Paronychia; Nail infections; NEISS; Nails; Nail disease; Emergency department

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a national-level analysis over two decades and found that cases of paronychia were associated with increasing age and weight over time. Manicuring was identified as the most common etiology for paronychia.
Introduction: Paronychia is the most common hand infection. Prior paronychia studies were limited by small patient numbers. We conducted a national-level analysis over two decades, analyzing demographics, etiologies, and trends in paronychia cases. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of paronychia cases in the 1999-2018 National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database. Sex, race, age, and cause were recorded and compared using chi(2), ANOVA, and t tests. Multivariable linear regression analysis assessed changes in age, weight, and sex over time. Results: We analyzed a total of 2,512 cases, with an average age of 27.6 +/- 20.6 years, 45.5% females, and 25.6% white and 28.6% black patients. In multivariable linear regression, both age and weight significantly increased over time. Manicuring was the most common etiology (30.9%), increasing in incidence over time and with a higher frequency in adults (p < 0.0001) and females (p < 0.0001). There was a significant decrease in pediatric paronychia cases over time, particularly in 0- to 4-year-olds. Possible limitations include missed paronychia cases or additional non-paronychia cases due to improper coding, infrequent race reporting, and inability to analyze treatments or distinguish between paronychia subtypes. Conclusions: Paronychia cases were associated with increased age and weight over time with different presentations by age. Manicuring represents the largest growing paronychia etiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据