Poison-centre records can inform toxicovigilance, but their interpretation depends on stable definitions and complete fields. We audited scorpion-sting data published by Turkey’s National Poison Control Centre (UZEM) and mapped record-design features in international publications. The detailed 2014–2018 appendix was analysed separately from 2019–2020 tables. It contained 7055 records; 51.0% involved males, 48.8% females, and 0.2% had unreported sex. May–September accounted for 74.1%, with July highest (17.9%). The source’s unequal age intervals initially favoured wider adult categories; after harmonisation into 10-year bands, ages 0–9 became the largest band in every year and represented 21.8% overall. Aggregate tables separately reported 1451 records in 2019 and 1729 in 2020. The audit covered 191 analytic ledger entries across 39 variables and identified numerical conflicts, changing definitions, and gaps in clinical linkage. Clinical tables were available only for 2017–2018, with no symptom recorded for 50.6% and 37.6% of annual records, respectively. Management fields documented recommendations and limited post-antivenom feedback, but not complete linked administration, severity, disposition, or outcomes. We propose a draft field framework prioritising event identity, clinical trajectory, treatment, disposition, and outcome. The findings describe poison-centre reporting activity rather than population risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cesaretli et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: