ArticlePediatric radiology2014
European survey of imaging in non-accidental injury demonstrates a need for a consensus protocol.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Computed tomography versus radiography for the detection of rib and skull fractures in paediatric suspected physical abuse: a systematic review.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Bone Scintigraphy After a Negative Radiological Skeletal Survey Improves the Detection Rate of Inflicted Skeletal Injury in Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Imaging of non-accidental injury; what is clinical best practice?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2018Review
- An Update on Imaging in Child Abuse.Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology · 2017Article
- Double-read of skeletal surveys in suspected non-accidental trauma: what we learned.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
- Evaluation for Occult Fractures in Injured Children.Pediatrics · 2015Article
- ESPR adopts British guidelines for imaging in suspected non-accidental injury as the European standard.Pediatric radiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPaediatric non-accidental injury is a considerable health problem, and imaging plays a fundamental role in its assessment. Since the introduction of joint guidelines published by the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) in 2008, there has been a concerted effort to adopt a consensus approach to imaging in this area in the United Kingdom.
objectiveThis study aims to establish current practice amongst European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) members within their institutions with regards to the use of imaging in suspected non-accidental injury. MATERIALS AND
methodsA web-based survey was created and circulated to all active ESPR members. The responses were collated and analysed.
resultsWe received 134 responses, accounting for 37% of the current membership across 24 European countries. These responses highlighted significant variation amongst institutions, with no consensus regarding radiographic and cross-sectional imaging in the investigation of suspected non-accidental injury.
conclusionThere is a need for a European consensus protocol to imaging in suspected non-accidental injury. We recommend implementing the joint RCR/RCPCH guidance, a move supported by the ESPR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24996810What 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.