ArticlePediatric radiology2016
Growth recovery lines are more common in infants at high vs. low risk for abuse.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Growth recovery lines: a specific indicator of child abuse and neglect?Pediatric radiology · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrowth recovery lines, also known as growth arrest lines, are transverse radiodense metaphyseal bands that develop due to a temporary arrest of endochondral ossification caused by local or systemic insults.
objectiveTo determine if growth recovery lines are more common in infants at high risk versus low risk for abuse. MATERIALS AND
methodsReports of American College of Radiology compliant skeletal surveys (1999-2013) were reviewed with clinical records. Infants at low risk for abuse had a skull fracture without significant intracranial injury, history of a fall and clinical determination of low risk (child protection team/social work assessment). Infants at high risk had significant intracranial injury, retinal hemorrhages, other skeletal injuries and clinical determination of high risk. There were 52 low-risk infants (mean: 4.7 months, range: 0.4-12 months) and 21 high-risk infants (mean: 4.2 months, range: 0.8-9.1 months). Two blinded radiologists independently evaluated the skeletal survey radiographs of the knees/lower legs for the presence of at least one growth recovery line.
resultsWhen growth recovery lines are scored as probably present or definitely present, their prevalence in the low-risk group was 38% (standard deviation [SD] = 8%; reader 1 = 17/52, reader 2 = 23/52) vs. 71% (SD = 7%; reader 1 = 16/21, reader 2 = 14/21) in the high-risk group (P < 0.001; odds ratio 4.0, 95% CI: 1.7-9.5).
conclusionGrowth recovery lines are encountered at a significantly higher rate in infants at high risk vs. low risk for abuse. This suggests that abused infants are prone to a temporary disturbance in endochondral ossification as a result of episodic physiological stresses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.