ArticlePloS one2017
The Value of a Checklist for Child Abuse in Out-of-Hours Primary Care: To Screen or Not to Screen.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying children exposed to maltreatment: a systematic review update.BMC pediatrics · 2020Pooled it
- Improving the recognition of child maltreatment in emergency departments in Europe: healthcare professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation of a comprehensive toolkit design.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Assessing the Predictive Validity of Risk Assessment Tools in Child Health and Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Screening for Child Abuse in the Emergency Department of Academic Hospital Paramaribo in Suriname.Global pediatric health · 2024Article
- Electronic Health Record Tools to Identify Child Maltreatment: Scoping Literature Review and Key Informant Interviews.Academic pediatrics · 2022Article
- An innovative postnatal risk assessment and corresponding care pathways in Preventive Child Healthcare.Journal of advanced nursing · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the efficacy and impact of a clinical prediction tool to identify maltreatment associated with children's burns.BMJ paediatrics open · 2021Article
- Recognition of child maltreatment in emergency departments in Europe: Should we do better?PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- COVID-19-related fear and stress among individuals who experienced child abuse: The mediating effect of complex posttraumatic stress disorder.Child abuse & neglect · 2020Article
- Reducing growth and developmental problems in children: Development of an innovative postnatal risk assessment.PloS one · 2019Article
- Development of screening tool for child abuse in the korean emergency department: Using modified Delphi study.Medicine · 2018Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic value of the screening instrument SPUTOVAMO-R2 (checklist, 5 questions) for child abuse at Out-of-hours Primary Care locations (OPC), by comparing the test outcome with information from Child Protection Services (CPS). Secondary, to determine whether reducing the length of the checklist compromises diagnostic value.
methodsAll children (<18 years) attending one of the participating OPCs in the region of Utrecht, the Netherlands, in a year time, were included. The checklist is an obligatory field in the electronic patient file. CPS provided data on all checklist positives and a sample of 5500 checklist negatives (dataset). The checklist outcome was compared with a report to CPS in 10 months follow up after the OPC visit.
resultsThe checklist was filled in for 50671 children; 108 (0.2%) checklists were positive. Within the dataset, 61 children were reported to CPS, with emotional neglect as the most frequent type of abuse (32.8%). The positive predictive value (PPV) of the checklist for child abuse was 8.3 (95% CI 3.9-15.2). The negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.1 (98.8-99.3), with 52 false negatives. When the length of the checklist was reduced to two questions closely related to the medical process (SPUTOVAMO-R3), the PPV was 9.1 (3.7-17.8) and the NPV 99.1 (98.7-99.3). These two questions are on the injury in relation to the history, and the interaction between child and parents.
conclusionsThe checklist SPUTOVAMO-R2 has a low detection rate of child abuse within the OPC setting, and a high false positive rate. Therefore, we recommend to use the shortened checklist only as a tool to increase the awareness of child abuse and not as a diagnostic instrument.
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.