ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2011
Which is the preferred image modality for paediatricians when assessing photographs of bruises in children?
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a model of bruising in pigmented skin for investigating the potential for alternate light source illumination to enhance the appearance of bruises by photography of visible and infrared light.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2019Article
- A comparison of four different imaging modalities - Conventional, cross polarized, infra-red and ultra-violet in the assessment of childhood bruising.Journal of forensic and legal medicine · 2018Article
- The risk of misinterpreting genital signs of sexual abuse in cadavers: a case report.International journal of legal medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Images of bruises serve as a clinical record and may facilitate forensic analysis in the assessment of suspected physical child abuse. Currently, only conventional imaging techniques are employed; however, alternative imaging modalities using visible and non-visible light may provide additional information. We sought to determine the image modality preferences of paediatricians and the between-observer agreement therein. Nine paediatricians who work in child protection independently compared five image modalities (conventional colour, conventional grey-scale, cross-Polarised, ultraviolet, and infrared) of four bruises, with a compliance rate of 95%. All images were taken using a standardised set of protocols with Nikon D90 cameras and 105-mm macro-lenses. The paediatricians almost unanimously chose cross-Polarised as their preferred modality for all four bruises when assessing boundary, shape, colour, size, and absence of light reflectance. Conventional colour and grey-scale imaging were typically ranked second and third. Ultraviolet and infrared were consistently ranked in the least two favourable positions. Between-observer agreement on ranking order was high, with coefficients of concordance ranging from 0.76 to 0.96. Combinations of imaging modalities chosen to give the most complete picture of the bruise predominantly consisted of cross-Polarised and conventional (colour and grey-scale). This pilot study demonstrated that clinicians collectively favoured cross-Polarised in addition to conventional imaging. Further studies are required to determine the value of ultraviolet and infrared imaging in the assessment of childhood bruises.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21136071What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.