Looking at the data from this superb study, the answer is yes. Not only that, we're likely missing the diagnosis in the vast majority of affected children.

If you've looked at your new 2018 Red Book , you'll see some options listed for treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Which one should you choose?

I love to read a well-designed and reported study, and an even bigger treat is if I learn something new about disease pathophysiology and some general trivia to boot. Here's an article that fulfills this trifecta for me.

One of the quandaries in interpreting medical research is how to use predictive values and likelihood ratios. This retrospective study of electrocardiogram findings in a group of children is highly illustrative.

The study in question was a nonrandomized controlled trial, a study design that ought to raise eyebrows from the start. For this study about an exercise program to prevent medial elbow injuries in youth baseball players, that's only the start of the problems.

Before rotavirus vaccine was introduced, albeit with some hiccups related to vaccine-associated intussusception, rotavirus was the most commonly identified cause of gastroenteritis in the United States.

Clearly there is a genetic predisposition to developing autism, but likely other environmental "hits" on top of this predisposition may influence whether a child actually develops clinically significant disease.

Acute chest syndrome (ACS) is a dangerous complication of sickle cell disease (SCD), with significant mortality. Two landmark prospective studies in the 1980s and 90s defined much of the etiologic and epidemiologic features of ACS, but much has changed (for the better) in the management of SCD since that time. Can an administrative database study help define current features of ACS?

The study combines both retrospective and prospective cohort studies with conclusions that virtually lay out the parameters for designing prospective randomized controlled trials that could lead to changes in clinical practice. With apologies to Ms. Browning, let me count the ways I love this study.

In the study introduction, the authors point out an important difference in epidemiologic study design that is worth mention. Their study utilized 2 databases, the Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life (PELL) database and the Massachusetts Bureau of Substance Abuse Services (BSAS) Management Information System.

The study originates from the Kaiser Permanente of Southern California health system which, because of its large patient population and electronic health record system, has the ability to measure practice and health outcomes with large study sample size. In this instance, investigators looked at 4 years' worth of blood pressure measurements in children between 3 and 17 years of age.

I scan a large number of medical journals looking for articles that might change my clinical practice, and my approach is what I try to convey in Evidence eMended.

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is the focus of screening examinations in the newborn period. Early identification can prevent need for more complicated treatment, such as casting or surgical correction, that may be necessary when DDH is diagnosed after 3-6 months of age.

This case-control study was an attempt to characterize fracture risk in children with asthma, but in spite of the high quality of the study design and reporting, it has limited generalizability.

All children have bruises from time to time, and one of many challenges in front-line pediatric practice is deciding when bruises should raise a flag for further investigation. This prospective observational study helps though still doesn't provide a definitive set of "rules" for triggering evaluation.

Last Halloween in a "Fifth Tuesday" post, I commented on an editorial to an article that I said I hoped would appear in a subsequent AAP Grand Rounds. It finally did this month!

When this study first appeared it was widely reported in the lay press, and I recall being a bit stunned by the criticisms aired at the time. When it appeared in February's AAP Grand Rounds list, I knew I would need to say something about it.

This is a retrospective observational study of a randomized controlled trial. Sound confusing? It's really not, and although it's a small study it does offer some fresh insight into pathogenesis and treatment of complicated nephrotic syndrome.

The authors did a good job trying to put these numbers into perspective. The hallmark of evidence-based medicine is, or should be, to translate scientific findings into information patients and families can use in making informed decisions about their healthcare.

When it comes to my own health, I try to explore all available evidence to guide my decisions. Should I drink more or less coffee or wine, should I try to adhere to the Mediterranean diet, what types of exercise are best? Sadly, I have to admit that I don't know the answers to any of those questions.