PERC-Peds Rule Could Change How Children Are Evaluated for Pulmonary Embolism: A PECARN Study

Pediatric emergency clinician evaluating a child at bedside, no imaging equipment in frame

Article reviewed: Ellison AM, Kuppermann N, Shihabuddin BS, et al. PERC-Peds rule for bedside exclusion of pulmonary embolism without radiation in children in the USA (BEEPER): a multicentre, prospective, observational, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Respir Med. Published online July 2026
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(26)00086-X

Pulmonary embolism (PE) in children is uncommon, but delayed or missed diagnosis can have serious consequences. Despite this, there is relatively little evidence to guide clinician evaluation of suspected pediatric PE. There are no validated pediatric PE rule-out strategies and adult diagnostic pathways have not been prospectively tested in children.

PECARN sought to change that with their recently published study – BEEPER: Bedside Exclusion of Pulmonary Embolism without Radiation in Children [1]. The investigators developed a rule that safely excluded PE in low-risk children.

Study Objective

The goal of BEEPER was to prospectively evaluate whether the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria adapted for children (PERC-Peds) could safely exclude pulmonary embolism in children without the need for laboratory testing or imaging.

What is PERC-Peds?

PERC-Peds was adapted from the adult Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC), a well-established adult clinical decision rule used to exclude PE in low-risk patients without additional testing [2]. Using retrospective pediatric data, investigators modified the adult PERC rule to create the pediatric version. A child was considered PERC-Peds negative only if ALL of the following were true:

Clinician gestalt pretest probability <15%
No prior PE or proximal DVT
No surgery requiring intubation within 30 days
No current estrogen use
No hemoptysis
Heart rate always:
- <100 beats/min if older than 12 years
- <120 beats/min if 12 years or younger
Oxygen saturation consistently >94%
No suspected DVT

Study Design

A Large, Prospective, Multicenter PECARN Study

BEEPER was a multicenter, prospective observational diagnostic accuracy study conducted across 21 emergency departments within PECARN (the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network).

Inclusion Criteria:

4–17 years old, AND
had suspected PE or proximal DVT prompting clinicians to:
- order diagnostic testing, OR
- strongly consider PE in the differential diagnosis

Eligible diagnostic testing included:

D-dimer
CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA)
V/Q scan
MRI angiography
Other pulmonary vascular imaging

All testing decisions remained entirely at clinician discretion.

Outcome Definition

The outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), including:

image-confirmed pulmonary embolism, OR
proximal DVT (above knee or elbow)

Results

Enrollment

4,039 children enrolled, 3,988 had analyzable data

Prevalence of Disease

Overall:

254 children (6.3%) had PE and/or proximal DVT

Breakdown:

Isolated proximal DVT: 76
Both PE and proximal DVT: 56
Isolated PE: 122

Performance of PERC-Peds

The PERC-Peds rule demonstrated extremely high diagnostic sensitivity.

Diagnostic Accuracy

Sensitivity: 99.6% (95% CI 97.8–99.9%)
Specificity: 19.6% (95% CI 18.4–21.0%)
False negative rate: 0.1% (95% CI 0–0.75%)
Negative predictive value: 99.9%

There was only ONE false negative. These findings suggest that PERC-Peds can safely exclude PE in a subset of low-risk children without additional laboratory testing or imaging.

D-Dimer Findings

BEEPER also provided the first large prospective evaluation of D-dimer performance in children undergoing PE evaluation. Clinicians ordered D-dimer testing in approximately 75–79% of enrolled children. Using a standardized threshold of 500 ng/mL:

Sensitivity: 88.8%
Specificity: 61.9%
False negative rate: 1.2–1.4%

These data support the use of D-dimer as part of a sequential diagnostic strategy in pediatric PE evaluation for those children who fail PERC-Peds.

PERC-Peds + D-Dimer Sequential Strategy

One of the most clinically important findings was the potential value of combining:

PERC-Peds
followed by D-dimer if PERC-Peds failed

This sequential strategy would have:

safely excluded PE in 54.7% of enrolled children,
excluded PE in 69% of children who had D-dimer ordered,
maintained an acceptable false negative rate of 1.0% (95% CI 0.6–1.5%),
estimated reduction in CT pulmonary angiography use by approximately 18.5%.

Putting PERC-Peds in Context

The PERC-Peds rule performed well compared to the regularly utilized adult PERC rule. Adult PERC studies [2] typically show sensitivities around 95% with false negative rates below 2%, while in BEEPER, the sensitivity approached 100% with an exceptionally low false negative rate. Just as importantly, this is the first prospective study to support a bedside rule-out strategy for PE in children: offering a potential pathway to safely reduce unnecessary CT scans and radiation exposure in low-risk patients. BEEPER also lays the groundwork for a more standardized pediatric PE evaluation approach, where clinicians could use PERC-Peds first, followed by D-dimer testing when needed, reserving imaging for children at higher risk.

What’s Next?

While BEEPER represents a major step forward in pediatric PE diagnosis, the study also highlights important limitations and unanswered questions. PERC-Peds demonstrated high sensitivity, but relatively low specificity: meaning many children will still fail the rule, and indiscriminate use could potentially increase testing. Importantly, BEEPER was an observational diagnostic study, meaning it did not evaluate outcomes from the implementation of a clinical decision rule.

BEEPER provides the foundation for a new era of pediatric PE evaluation research. Future studies will likely focus on implementation science: understanding whether use of PERC-Peds changes clinician behavior, safely reduces imaging, and can be integrated into real-world emergency department workflows. Investigators also envision future diagnostic algorithms that combine PERC-Peds with D-dimer testing to reserve imaging for children at highest risk, potentially reducing unnecessary radiation exposure in a meaningful number of patients. Additional work can evaluate performance across different clinical settings, refine the gestalt component of the rule, and explore integration into electronic health record decision support tools. Taken together, BEEPER fills one of the most important evidence gaps in pediatric emergency medicine and represents the first major step toward safer, more standardized, and evidence-based pediatric PE evaluation.

References

Ellison AM, Kuppermann N, Shihabuddin BS, et al. PERC-Peds rule for bedside exclusion of pulmonary embolism without radiation in children in the USA (BEEPER): a multicentre, prospective, observational, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Respir Med. Published online July 2026. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(26)00086-X.
Kline JA, Courtney DM, Kabrhel C, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6(5):772-780. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02944.x. PMID: 18318689.

By Lauren VonHoltz, MD MPH|2026-07-20T21:50:18-07:00Jul 21, 2026|Pediatrics, Pulmonary, Radiology|

What We Still Do Not Know About Pediatric Mental Health Emergencies: PECARN Research Agenda

Adolescent sitting on an emergency department bed seen from behind, with a caregiver and clinician nearby in a calm, dimly lit room

Article reviewed: Hoffmann JA, Foster AA, Krass P, et al. A research agenda for acute pediatric mental and behavioral health emergencies. Ann Emerg Med. Published online July 10, 2026
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2026.05.015 | PubMed: PMID 42429726

Every emergency physician knows these moments. A 10-year-old with autism is escalating in a hallway bed, and nobody can say which de-escalation approach or which medication is safest for him. A 15-year-old is boarding for a third night after a suicide attempt, receiving no active treatment while she waits for a psychiatric bed. A charge nurse asks whether universal suicide screening is worth the workflow disruption. These are routine clinical decisions, and for most of them the pediatric evidence simply does not exist.

A new consensus statement from the PECARN Mental Health Working Group, A Research Agenda for Acute Pediatric Mental and Behavioral Health Emergencies, published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, maps where those evidence gaps are and which ones matter most [1]. The panel reached consensus on 51 research priorities, 31 of them top tier. Read as a whole, the agenda is an unusually honest inventory of how much of current pediatric behavioral health emergency care runs on extrapolation and local habit.

Background

One in 6 US children has a mental or behavioral health condition, and nearly half receive no treatment from a mental health professional [2]. The ED has become the de facto safety net: visits for self-harm and harm to others have risen substantially over the past decade, boarding times have stretched, and in 2021 the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association jointly declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health [3]. What has not kept pace is the evidence for what emergency clinicians should actually do during these visits.

How the Agenda Was Built

The working group used a modified Delphi process with 23 expert partners: 4 parents and 1 young adult with lived experience of pediatric mental health emergency care, general and pediatric emergency physicians, emergency nurses, child and adolescent psychiatrists with emergency expertise, ED social workers, out-of-hospital and EMS-fellowship-trained clinicians, and a research funder. Across 3 survey rounds, 76 literature-informed candidate priorities were modified, expanded, and rated on need and urgency, research impact, and family centeredness. The prespecified retention criteria required agreement from both the family representative group and the clinician and funder group, so family voices could not be outvoted. The result: 51 consensus priorities sorted into 3 tiers.

Where the Gaps Are

Suicide prevention dominates

Suicide prevention questions account for 42% of the top tier. The panel wants to know which suicide risk screening tool best predicts real outcomes such as return visits, attempts, and deaths, including in neurodivergent children and non-English speakers; what universal screening does to those outcomes; and whether safety planning, with or without structured follow-up calls, actually increases mental health follow-up and reduces future attempts in youth. The contrast with adult evidence is striking. In adults, the multicenter ED-SAFE trial showed that universal screening plus a brief intervention reduced post-discharge suicidal behavior [4]. The pediatric equivalent has never been done. The panel also prioritized a practical lethal-means question: which safety devices, from medication lock boxes to firearm safes, do caregivers actually prefer and use after the ED visit?

Agitation: everything is still an open question

Which de-escalation methods best reduce medication use, restraint use, and staff injuries, and how does that differ by age, developmental stage, culture, language, and trauma history? Which medications are safest and most effective, for which children? What works for children with neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, who face a higher risk of pharmacologic and physical restraint? None of these have comparative evidence today, even though documented racial disparities in restraint application make the stakes plain [1].

Boarding and ED care

Top-tier questions include whether brief therapy delivered in the ED during boarding improves symptoms, shortens length of stay, and lowers admission rates, and whether home-based care is a safe and acceptable alternative to hospitalization. The panel also flagged care in rural and low-resource EDs, where most of these children are actually seen.

Before and after the ED

Out-of-hospital priorities center on training first responders in de-escalation and trauma-informed care and on testing novel response models, including mental health co-response teams and alternative destinations. A single-county pilot of direct EMS transport to a psychiatric emergency facility found that roughly 2 in 5 encounters met criteria for direct transport, with only 0.5% requiring secondary ED transfer within 24 hours [5]. On the back end, the agenda targets the high-risk post-discharge window: what actually gets youth to mental health care after they leave, and whether stepped-care models using telehealth reduce return visits and future attempts.

Clinical Implications

Nothing in a research agenda changes tomorrow’s orders, and this post will not pretend otherwise. The value for a practicing clinician is different. First, the agenda names how thin the floor is under common practices: medication choice for acute agitation in children, for example, is largely extrapolated from adult psychiatry. Knowing where evidence is absent should make us slower to treat local protocol as settled science. Second, this document signals where PECARN and federal funders will direct pediatric emergency mental health research over the next 5 to 10 years, which is useful for anyone building a QI program, a research career, or a departmental protocol they would prefer not to rewrite twice. Third, the top-tier questions double as an audit checklist: if your ED cannot say how often it restrains children, whether safety planning happens before discharge, or what its mental health boarding times are, the agenda is a reasonable place to start measuring.

One limitation deserves mention because the authors themselves flag it: no expert partners identified as Black or Hispanic, a notable gap given the documented racial disparities in restraint use and in behavioral health triage that PECARN’s own work has described.

Bottom Line

PECARN’s consensus research agenda distills the pediatric mental and behavioral health emergency evidence gap into 51 prioritized questions, with suicide prevention accounting for 42% of the top tier. It will not change your practice today. It tells you something more uncomfortable and more useful: for most of what we do during pediatric behavioral health visits, from de-escalation to safety planning to boarding care, the evidence base has not been written yet, and this is the field’s official to-do list for writing it.

References

Hoffmann JA, Foster AA, Krass P, et al. A research agenda for acute pediatric mental and behavioral health emergencies. Ann Emerg Med. Published online July 10, 2026. PMID: 42429726. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2026.05.015
Bitsko RH, Claussen AH, Lichstein J, et al. Mental health surveillance among children – United States, 2013-2019. MMWR Suppl. 2022;71(2):1-42. PMID: 35202359. doi:10.15585/mmwr.su7102a1
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Children’s Hospital Association. AAP-AACAP-CHA declaration of a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health. 2021.
Miller IW, Camargo CA Jr, Arias SA, et al. Suicide prevention in an emergency department population: the ED-SAFE study. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(6):563-570. PMID: 28456130. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0678
Glomb NW, Trivedi T, Grupp-Phelan J, et al. Safety of a prehospital emergency medical services protocol for an alternative destination for pediatric behavioral emergencies in Alameda County. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2023;4(2):e12930. PMID: 37051504. doi:10.1002/emp2.12930

By Michelle Lin, MD|2026-07-13T03:11:42-07:00Jul 13, 2026|Pediatrics, Psychiatry|

AZ-SWED Trial: Azithromycin Does Not Improve Preschool Wheezing Outcomes

Pediatric emergency clinician listening to a wheezing toddler's chest with a stethoscope while the child sits on a parent's lap

Article reviewed: Denninghoff KR, Casper TC, Zorc JJ, et al. Azithromycin for Preschoolers with Wheezing in the Emergency Department. N Engl J Med. Published online May 18, 2026
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2516505 | PubMed: PMID 42149992

Preschool wheezing is one of the most common pediatric ED presentations, and reaching for azithromycin can be tempting. Rhinovirus is the virus most often detected in these episodes, but pathogenic bacteria are commonly found in the nasopharynx of affected children, and some earlier outpatient data suggested that early antibiotic therapy might blunt severity.

The AZ-SWED trial (Azithromycin Therapy in Preschoolers with a Severe Wheezing Episode Diagnosed at the Emergency Department), published in the New England Journal of Medicine, tested this directly in the ED. The trial was stopped early for futility [1].

Study Design

Denninghoff et al enrolled 840 children aged 18-59 months presenting with moderate-to-severe wheezing across eight PECARN emergency departments. The age range was chosen to target preschool-aged children before a clear asthma diagnosis is typically established, the population in whom antibiotic benefit has been most often hypothesized and in whom practice variation is greatest. Children were randomized to either a 5-day course of azithromycin or a matching placebo, with all participants also receiving standard care at the treating clinician’s discretion, including bronchodilators and corticosteroids.

Because prior research raised the possibility that bacterial co-colonization might identify a subgroup most likely to benefit from antibiotics [2-5], the trial pre-specified separate analyses for children with and without detectable nasopharyngeal Streptococcus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, or Haemophilus influenzae, the three organisms most commonly implicated in respiratory illness in this age group. This let the investigators test whether the bacteria-positive children benefit, rather than leaving it as a post hoc question.

The primary outcome was symptom severity over 5 days, measured using the Asthma Flare-up Diary for Young Children (ADYC), a validated 17-item caregiver-reported instrument in which each symptom is scored from 1 (best) to 7 (worst) [6]. Secondary outcomes included ED and hospital length of stay and return ED visits or hospitalizations within 72 hours [1].

Results

Azithromycin provided no clinical benefit over placebo, regardless of bacterial detection status.

ADYC symptom scores over 5 days were similar between groups in children with detectable nasopharyngeal bacteria (p = 0.70) and in those without (p = 0.69). There were no meaningful differences in length of stay or in return visits or hospitalizations.

Rhinovirus was the most commonly detected virus, identified in 72.5% of participants. Pathogenic bacteria were detected on nasopharyngeal swab in 62% of children overall. Azithromycin did clear nasopharyngeal bacteria more effectively than placebo (58.7% vs 11.4%), confirming that the drug was biologically active. That microbiologic effect, however, did not translate to clinical improvement on any outcome measured.

Clinical Implications

This is a large, ED-based randomized trial, and it argues against routine antibiotic use in preschool wheezing. Up to a quarter of children hospitalized for wheezing currently receive antibiotics, which likely reflects the same uncertainty the trial set out to address. The bacteria detected in the nasopharynx do not appear to drive the acute wheezing episode in these children, and treating them does not change how the children do.

The dissociation between bacterial clearance and clinical outcomes is itself informative. The fact that azithromycin reliably eradicated nasopharyngeal bacteria without any detectable clinical signal suggests that these organisms are bystanders rather than drivers of the acute episode, at least in most preschool wheezers. This has implications beyond this trial: it cautions against using bacterial detection alone as a rationale for antibiotic prescribing in this age group.

Bottom Line

Routine azithromycin has no role in the management of preschool wheezing, even in children with detectable nasopharyngeal bacteria. Bronchodilators and corticosteroids where appropriate remain the mainstays of care, and these data give clinicians another reason to hold antibiotics in this group.

References

Denninghoff KR, Casper TC, Zorc JJ, et al. Azithromycin for Preschoolers with Wheezing in the Emergency Department. N Engl J Med. Published online May 18, 2026. PMID: 42149992. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2516505
Bisgaard H, Hermansen MN, Buchvald F, et al. Childhood asthma after bacterial colonization of the airway in neonates. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(15):1487-1495. PMID: 17928596. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa052632
Bacharier LB, Guilbert TW, Mauger DT, et al. Early Administration of Azithromycin and Prevention of Severe Lower Respiratory Tract Illnesses in Preschool Children With a History of Such Illnesses: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;314(19):2034-2044. PMID: 26575060. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13896
Stokholm J, Chawes BL, Vissing NH, et al. Azithromycin for episodes with asthma-like symptoms in young children aged 1-3 years: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(1):19-26. PMID: 26704020. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00500-7
Mandhane PJ, Paredes Zambrano de Silbernagel P, Aung YN, et al. Treatment of preschool children presenting to the emergency department with wheeze with azithromycin: a placebo-controlled randomized trial. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182411. PMID: 28771627. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182411
Ducharme FM, Jensen ME, Mendelson MJ, et al. Asthma Flare-up Diary for Young Children to monitor the severity of exacerbations. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(3):744-749.e6. PMID: 26341275. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2015.07.028

By Michelle Lin, MD|2026-06-02T21:43:22-07:00Jun 4, 2026|Infectious Disease, Pediatrics, Pulmonary|

PRoMPT BOLUS: A Landmark PECARN Trial Defining Fluid Choice in Pediatric Sepsis

Two IV fluid bags labeled 0.9% sodium chloride and lactated Ringer's hanging side by side in a pediatric emergency department

Article reviewed: Balamuth F, Weiss SL, Long E, et al; PRoMPT BOLUS Investigators of the PECARN, PERC, and PREDICT Networks. Balanced Fluid or 0.9% Saline in Children Treated for Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. Published online April 24, 2026
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2601969 | PubMed: PMID 42028918

For years, clinicians and researchers have debated a fundamental question in pediatric emergency care: does the type of fluid used in pediatric sepsis resuscitation matter?

The PRoMPT BOLUS trial was designed to answer this question. Conducted across 47 international sites in 5 countries and enrolling more than 9,000 children, this large, pragmatic randomized trial compared 0.9% saline with balanced crystalloids in children treated for suspected septic shock.

The results have just been released. Across a wide range of clinically meaningful outcomes (including kidney injury, mortality, and recovery), there was no difference between fluid types.

Background

Sepsis remains a major global health concern, affecting approximately 50 million people each year, with children accounting for nearly half of these cases. Early fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone of treatment, making the choice of fluid a critical and historically debated decision.

Two primary types of crystalloid fluids are used in practice:

0.9% saline, which contains a higher-than-physiologic chloride concentration
Balanced fluids (such as lactated Ringer’s, Hartmann’s solution and PlasmaLyte), which more closely resemble plasma electrolyte composition

Prior research raised concerns that saline could contribute to metabolic acidosis and kidney injury, while balanced fluids were associated with improved outcomes in some adult and smaller pediatric studies. However, the pediatric literature remained inconsistent, with observational studies reaching conflicting conclusions. As a result, guidelines offered only weak recommendations favoring balanced fluids and called for more definitive trials.

PRoMPT BOLUS was designed to fill this gap.

Study Design

This trial used a pragmatic, randomized design (NS vs. balanced fluids), intentionally embedded into routine clinical care. Pragmatic trials evaluate clinical interventions within typical practice, rather than highly controlled clinical settings. By incorporating fluid randomization without modifying additional aspects of clinical practice, this approach allowed investigators to study fluid choice in real-world conditions across diverse healthcare systems. PRoMPT BOLUS was a collaborative effort across multiple networks including PECARN (Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network), PERC (Pediatric Emergency Research Canada), and PREDICT (Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative).

Children ages 2 months to <18 years were eligible if clinicians suspected sepsis and were planning to treat with more than one fluid bolus for abnormal perfusion consistent with septic shock. They were randomized to receive either balanced fluids or 0.9% saline, with clinicians otherwise managing care as they normally would.

The primary outcome was MAKE30 (Major Adverse Kidney Events within 30 days), a composite that includes mortality, need for renal replacement therapy, or persistent kidney dysfunction at hospital discharge or 30 days, whichever came first.

This pragmatic approach was critical to the study’s success. It allowed for:

High enrollment across multiple international sites
Enrollment at the beginning of sepsis resuscitation so that most early fluid was as randomized
Strong generalizability to everyday clinical practice
Minimal disruption to clinical workflows

Results

Primary Outcome

The primary outcome, MAKE30, occurred at nearly identical rates in both groups:

Balanced fluids: 3.4%
Saline: 3.0%

This difference was neither statistically nor clinically significant. There were also no differences in any of the individual MAKE30 components between treatment groups.

Secondary and Safety Outcomes

Similarly, there were no meaningful differences in:

Mortality
Hospital length of stay
Hospital-free days (median of 23 days in both groups)
Safety events such as thrombosis or cerebral edema

Together, these findings strongly support the conclusion that both fluids are equally safe and effective.

Biochemical Differences

Although there were measurable and statistically significant biochemical differences between groups (such as higher rates of hyperchloremia and hypernatremia with saline and hyperlactatemia with balanced fluids), these changes did not translate into clinically meaningful outcomes.

Subgroup Analyses

Subgroup analyses across patient characteristics, illness severity, and total fluid volume showed no differences in outcomes. While there was a non-significant trend suggesting potential benefit of balanced fluids in the most severely ill patients, the study was not powered to confirm this finding.

Major Findings

The results of PRoMPT BOLUS can be distilled into several key conclusions:

Both 0.9% saline and balanced fluids are safe and effective for treatment of children with suspected septic shock
Fluid type does not influence major clinical outcomes, including mortality or kidney injury
Biochemical differences exist between fluid choices, but did not translate to differences in clinical outcomes

Importantly, while the study cannot fully exclude a benefit of balanced fluids in the sickest patients, it provides strong evidence that for children presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis, either fluid is an appropriate choice.

Clinical Implications

These findings have immediate and meaningful implications for clinical practice.

First, they simplify decision-making. Clinicians can focus on timely recognition and treatment of children with suspected sepsis, and engage in fluid resuscitation with fluids that make sense for the clinical scenario.

Second, the results support flexibility in care. Fluid choice can now be guided by:

Availability
Medication compatibility
Patient-specific factors (e.g., electrolyte abnormalities, underlying conditions)

Limitations

While the study is robust, several limitations should be considered.

The overall incidence of MAKE30 was lower than expected (~3% vs. an anticipated ~6%), which may reflect a less severely ill population than initially projected. This could limit the ability to detect small differences between groups.

Additionally, although subgroup analyses suggested a possible benefit of balanced fluids in more severely ill patients, the study was not powered to draw definitive conclusions in this population.

Bottom Line

The PRoMPT BOLUS trial provides the strongest evidence to date addressing fluid choice in children presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis. Both 0.9% saline and balanced crystalloids are safe and effective for resuscitation in children with suspected septic shock.

References

Balamuth F, Weiss SL, Long E, et al; PRoMPT BOLUS Investigators of the PECARN, PERC, and PREDICT Networks. Balanced Fluid or 0.9% Saline in Children Treated for Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. Published online April 24, 2026. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2601969

By Lauren VonHoltz, MD MPH|2026-05-04T21:19:59-07:00May 7, 2026|Critical Care/ Resus, Pediatrics|

Who Gets Mistriaged? Disparities in Pediatric Behavioral Health ED Triage | A PECARN multicenter analysis

mistriaging of pediatric mental health conditions with ESI
A 14-year-old Hispanic girl presents to the Emergency Department with her mother for suicidal ideation after a conflict at home. The girl is quiet and cooperative. Her mother, who speaks primarily Spanish, is trying to explain the situation. The nurse assigns an ESI level 2, the same score given to nearly every child who walks through the door with a behavioral health complaint. But does that score accurately capture this patient’s needs?

A new multicenter PECARN study published this week in JAMA Network Open takes a close look at triage accuracy for pediatric behavioral health ED visits. The findings: mistriaging errors are common, and they are not equally distributed [1].

Hoffmann et al. analyzed 78,411 ED visits by children aged 5 to 17 with behavioral health chief concerns across 15 PECARN Registry EDs from 2021 to 2023 [1]. They classified each visit as appropriately triaged, overtriaged, or undertriaged using vital signs, Glasgow Coma Scale, pain scores, emergency medication use, resource utilization, and disposition. Of the 74,564 visits with complete data:

57% were overtriaged
34% were appropriately triaged
8.5% were undertriaged

How ESI Handles Behavioral Health

The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) is used in over 90% of US EDs [2]. It sorts patients into 5 acuity levels. Level 1 is for patients needing lifesaving interventions. Level 2 is for high-risk situations, confused patients, or those in severe pain. Levels 3 through 5 are based on anticipated resource needs. In this study, 83.5% of all behavioral health visits were triaged as ESI level 2.

To assess triage accuracy, the authors compared each child’s assigned ESI level against what actually happened during their visit.

Overtriage

Overtriage means a child was assigned a higher acuity score than their clinical course supported. For a child assigned ESI level 2, overtriage was defined as meeting ALL of the following [1]:

Stable vital signs within 2 hours of arrival (heart rate and respiratory rate not high risk for age, SpO2 ≥93% or not recorded)
Pain score <7 (or not recorded)
GCS of 15 (or not recorded)
No emergency medications during the visit

In other words, the triage nurse predicted high acuity, but the visit didn’t bear that out.

Undertriage

Undertriage means the opposite: a child was assigned a lower acuity score than their clinical course warranted. For example, a child triaged as ESI level 4 (expected to need 1 resource) who ended up being admitted, needing emergency medications, or using multiple resources. The triage nurse underestimated how sick the child was or how much care they would need.

Undertriage Disproportionately Affects Minority Children and Spanish-Speaking Families

The most concerning equity finding was in undertriage.

After adjusting for clinical and visit characteristics, undertriage was significantly more likely for Hispanic children (AOR 1.46), non-Hispanic Black children (AOR 1.28), and children whose families preferred Spanish (AOR 1.31), all compared to non-Hispanic White and English-speaking patients [1]. The authors point to implicit clinician bias, systemic racism, and underutilization of professional interpreters as likely contributors.

The safety implications are real. Children whose acuity is underestimated may face longer waits, miss time-sensitive interventions, or leave the ED without being seen despite elevated risk.

Overtriage Was Common

More than half of all visits (57%) were overtriaged [1]. These children received a higher acuity triage score than their clinical course supported.

The strongest predictor was age. Children aged 5-9 had over 4-fold higher adjusted odds of overtriage compared to those aged 10-14 (AOR 4.43), possibly because younger children have a limited ability to communicate their symptoms and needs.

To a lesser degree, non-Hispanic Black children also had higher adjusted odds of overtriage compared to non-Hispanic White children (AOR 1.17). The authors cite research on adultification, the tendency to perceive Black youth as older or more threatening than they are, as a potential contributor. This means Black children in this study were more likely to be both undertriaged and overtriaged compared to White children. The errors are not unidirectional. They likely reflect different biases operating at different points in care.

Take Home Points

The ESI has limited ability to differentiate pediatric behavioral health presentations. In this study, 83.5% of behavioral health visits were triaged as ESI level 2.
UNDERTRIAGE was more likely for Hispanic children (AOR 1.46), non-Hispanic Black children (AOR 1.28), and Spanish-speaking families (AOR 1.31), raising concerns about missed acuity in these groups.
OVERTRIAGE occurred in 57% of visits, driven most strongly by younger age (AOR 4.43 for ages 5 to 9) and to a lesser degree by non-Hispanic Black race (AOR 1.17).

References

Hoffmann JA, Foster AA, Rojas CR, et al. Overtriage and undertriage of children presenting to the emergency department for behavioral health. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;9(3):e263042. Full text
McHugh M, Tanabe P, McClelland M, Khare RK. More patients are triaged using the Emergency Severity Index than any other triage acuity system in the United States. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(1):106-109. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01240.x

By Michelle Lin, MD|2026-03-28T19:43:20-07:00Mar 28, 2026|Pediatrics, Psychiatry|

From Collision to Clarity: PECARN cervical spine injury prediction rule for injured children

PECARN cervical spine injury prediction tool featured image (adapted from Midjourney)

For years, adult literature has provided clear guidelines for cervical spine imaging through the NEXUS and Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR) tools. These have been invaluable in helping clinicians decide when to image the neck in trauma patients. Similarly, the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) has developed robust tools for assessing blunt head trauma in children. However, until now, there has been a gap in guidance for clinicians managing pediatric patients at risk for cervical spine injuries.

Case Scenario: What would you do?

A 10-year-old boy presents to the emergency department (ED) after a high-speed motor vehicle collision. He complains of neck pain and is reluctant to move his head. The child’s mother is extremely worried, fearing the worst after witnessing the collision.

The Problem

Cervical spine injuries in children, while uncommon, can be devastating if not identified and treated promptly. Emergency physicians often face the challenge of deciding whether to proceed with imaging, given the potential risks associated with ionizing radiation from CT scans. The lack of clear guidelines specifically tailored for pediatric patients has historically led to either overuse of imaging, with its associated risks, or underuse, with the risk of missed injuries.

PECARN Cervical Spine Injury Prediction Rule

On June 4, 2024, Lancet published “PECARN prediction rule for cervical spine imaging of children presenting to the emergency department with blunt trauma: a multicentre prospective observational study.” This study proposes a new clinical prediction rule to guide imaging decisions for pediatric cervical spine injuries.

The study enrolled 22,430 children, aged 0–17 years, presenting with blunt trauma across 18 PECARN-affiliated ED in the US. About half were in the derivation and half in the validation cohort. The researchers derived and validated a clinical prediction rule using data from these children, which identified key risk factors for cervical spine injury, divided into high-risk and non-negligible (intermediate) risk factors.

High Risk (>12.1% risk of injury) -> Consider CT

Altered mental status (GCS 3-8 or AVPU = U)
Abnormal airway
Breathing
Circulation findings
Focal neurological deficits

Intermediate Risk (2.8% risk of injury) -> Consider X-Rays

Neck pain or midline neck tenderness
Mental status: GCS 9-14, AVPU = V or P, or other signs of altered mental status
Substantial head or torso injury

Definition on Cervical Spine Injury

Fractures or ligamentous injuries of the cervical spine
Cervical intraspinal hemorrhage
Cerebral artery injury
Cervical spinal cord injury, including
- Changes in the cervical spinal cord on MRI
- Cervical spinal cord injury without radiographic association

PECARN Cervical Spine Injury Prediction Tool (Download full sized PDF at PECARN site)

The prediction rule had strong test characteristics with 94.3% sensitivity and 99.9% negative predictive value, indicating that it can reliably identify children who do not need imaging, thus avoiding unnecessary radiation exposure. This evidence-based approach to pediatric trauma care would have reduced the number of CT scans by more than 50% without missing clinically relevant injuries.

Case Example Resolution

Using the PECARN cervical spine injury prediction rule, the attending physician evaluates the boy and finds that he does not exhibit any high-risk factors. However, because he reports neck pain and has midline neck tenderness on exam (intermediate risk), the rule recommends that the cervical spine can not be clinically cleared. It also suggests plain x-rays and not a CT scan. This differs from the adult population whereby CT scan imaging is often the first choice for diagnostic testing.

The x-rays reveal no evidence of cervical spine injury, and the boy is cleared with instructions for follow-up care. This approach not only alleviated the mother’s anxiety but also avoided unnecessary radiation exposure for the child.

Reference

Leonard JC, Harding M, Cook LJ, et al. PECARN prediction rule for cervical spine imaging of children presenting to the emergency department with blunt trauma: a multicentre prospective observational study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2024;8(7):482-490. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(24)00104-4. PMID 38843852

By Michelle Lin, MD|2026-01-08T21:25:20-08:00Jun 10, 2024|Pediatrics, Radiology, Trauma|

Computerized Adaptive Screen for Suicidal Youth (CASSY) study

Adolescent suicide rates in the United States, partly augmented by the COVID-19 pandemic, are steadily increasing [1, 2]. A commonly used screening tool is the 4-question Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) instrument, which has a sensitivity and specificity of 60% and 92.7%, respectively, in predicting suicide-related events within 3 months. This was derived from a retrospective study of 15,003 pediatric patients (age 10-18 years) [3]. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with suicide attempts, is there a better screening tool with a higher sensitivity than 60%, while also maintaining adequate specificity? A higher sensitivity rate ensures that we have fewer misses.

The CASSY tool

In JAMA Psychiatry 2021, the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) researchers report derivation and external validation data for their suicide screening tool, called the Computerized Adaptive Screen for Suicidal Youth (CASSY) [4]. This publication was actually two studies in one: a derivation of the tool and then an external validation.

Terminology

This paper assumes that the reader understands certain predictive analytics methodologies and test design concepts. Let’s briefly review some of the foundational terminology used:

Item response theory [Wikipedia]: “It is a theory of testing based on the relationship between individuals’ performances on a test item and the test takers’ levels of performance on an overall measure of the ability that item was designed to measure.” Of note, each item may be weighted differently based on how well it correlates with the overall outcome measure, which in this study was suicide attempt within 3 months.
Computerized adaptive testing [Wikipedia]: This computer testing strategy, also known as tailored testing, presents questions based on the individual’s response to a prior question.
Receiver operator characteristics (ROC): “The performance of a diagnostic test in the case of a binary predictor can be evaluated using the measures of sensitivity and specificity. However, in many instances, we encounter predictors that are measured on a continuous or ordinal scale. In such cases, it is desirable to assess performance of a diagnostic test over the range of possible cutpoints for the predictor variable. This is achieved by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve that includes all the possible decision thresholds from a diagnostic test result.” [5] In other words, test sensitivities can be calculated for set specificities of, for instance, 70%, 80%, and 90%. Based on the purpose of the diagnostic test, the binary predictor threshold would be set accordingly.
Area under the curve (AUC): Calculating the AUC for the ROC is an effective means to determine a diagnostic test’s accuracy. The AUC ranges from 0 to 1 with 0.5 meaning no discrimination (i.e., the test can not diagnose patients with and without the disease based on the test). Generally, an AUC value of 0.7-0.8 is acceptable, 0.8 to 0.9 is excellent, and >0.9 is outstanding [5].

Study 1: CASSY derivation

A total of 6,536 adolescents (age 12-17 years) from 13 PECARN emergency departments were enrolled and a subset were randomly received follow-up in 3 months to assess for a suicide attempt. These patients responded to 92 questions on a computer tablet. Using a multidimensional item response theory approach, the more correlated questions (72) were used to create the CASSY tool.

Test characteristic results:

AUC: 0.89 (excellent)
Using the ROC curve, the CASSY sensitivity was 83% and 61% for the fixed specificity of 80% and 90%, respectively.

Study 2: CASSY validation

A total of 4,050 adolescents from 14 PECARN emergency departments were enrolled, and all received 3-month follow-up assessing for a suicide attempt. These patients completed the CASSY tool, as well as a subset of questions from study 1 for comparison. The frequency of questions used in the adaptive screen are itemized in the paper.

Test characteristic results:

AUC 0.87 (excellent)
Using the ROC curve and at the 80% specificity cutoff from study 1, the CASSY sensitivity was 82.4% and specificity was 72.5%.

Limitations

Although there was strong study rigor by deriving and independently validating the tool in separate, multicenter populations, it should be noted that generalizability may be affected.

The study was conducted in academic pediatric emergency departments.
There was quite a few patients who were lost to follow up (27.1% in study 1, 30.5% in study 2), which may have skewed the results.
Selection bias may have occurred because of patients declining to participate in the study (62% enrollment rate in study 1, 62.2% in study 2)

Bottom line

The CASSY tool accurately serves as a screening predictive tool for adolescents at risk for a suicide attempt in 3 months. Rather than having patients complete exhaustively long (and practically unfeasible) screening questions in the emergency department, this computerized adaptive tool required only a mean of 11 questions, which took a median time of 1.4 minutes (IQR 0.98-2.06 minutes) to complete.

How can you implement CASSY in your emergency department?

We asked the authors this question, and the answer is in the podcast below.

Podcast

Listen more with author Dr. Jacqueline Grupp-Phelan talking with ALiEM podcast host, Dr. Dina Wallin, about this landmark paper and behind-the-scenes issues not included on the paper.

This blog post was expert peer-reviewed by Drs. King and Grupp-Phelan, who authored the paper.

References

Hill RM, Rufino K, Kurian S, Saxena J, Saxena K, Williams L. Suicide Ideation and Attempts in a Pediatric Emergency Department Before and During COVID-19 [published online ahead of print, 2020 Dec 16]. Pediatrics. 2020;e2020029280. PMID: 33328339
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Published 2020.
DeVylder JE,Ryan TC, Cwik M, et al. Assessment of selective and universal screening for suicide risk in a pediatric emergency department. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1914070-e1914070. PMID 31651971
King CA, Brent D, Grupp-Phelan J, et al. Prospective Development and Validation of the Computerized Adaptive Screen for Suicidal Youth [published online ahead of print, 2021 Feb 3]. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021; 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4576. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4576. PMID 33533908
Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(9):1315-1316. doi:10.1097/JTO. 0b013e3181ec173d

Listen to all the PECARN podcasts

By Michelle Lin, MD|2021-07-01T21:15:43-07:00Mar 5, 2021|Expert Peer Reviewed (Clinical), Pediatrics, Psychiatry|