Observational studyThe Journal of pediatrics2018
Classifying Injuries in Young Children as Abusive or Accidental: Reliability and Accuracy of an Expert Panel Approach.
Observational study in The Journal of pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epigenetic Responses to Abusive versus Accidental Injuries in Children: A Cross-sectional Epigenome Wide Association Meta-analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Prevalence of inflicted and neglectful femur shaft fractures in young children in national level I trauma centers.Pediatric radiology · 2022Article
- Validation of a Clinical Decision Rule to Predict Abuse in Young Children Based on Bruising Characteristics.JAMA network open · 2021Observational
- Who's Watching the Children? Caregiver Features Associated with Physical Child Abuse versus Accidental Injury.The Journal of pediatrics · 2019Observational
- Social history: A qualitative analysis of child abuse pediatricians' consultation notes.Child abuse & neglect · 2018Article
- Bias and Objectivity When Evaluating Social Risk Factors for Physical Abuse: of Babies and Bathwater.The Journal of pediatrics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess interrater reliability and accuracy of an expert panel in classifying injuries of patients as abusive or accidental based on comprehensive case information. STUDY
designData came from a prospective, observational, multicenter study investigating bruising characteristics of children younger than 4 years. We enrolled 2166 patients with broad ranges of illnesses and injuries presenting to one of 5 pediatric emergency departments in whom bruises were identified during examination. We collected comprehensive data regarding current and past injuries and illnesses, and provided deidentified, standardized case information to a 9-member multidisciplinary panel of experts with extensive experience in pediatric injury. Each panelist classified cases using a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from definite abuse to definite accident. Panelists also assessed whether report to child protective services (CPS) was warranted. We calculated reliability coefficients for likelihood of abuse and decision to report to CPS.
resultsThe interrater reliability of the panelists was high. The Kendall coefficient (95% CI) for the likelihood of abuse was 0.89 (0.87, 0.91) and the kappa coefficient for the decision to report to CPS was 0.91 (0.87, 0.94). Reliability of pairs and subgroups of panelists were similarly high. A panel composite classification was nearly perfectly accurate in a subset of cases having definitive, corroborated injury status.
conclusionsA panel of experts with different backgrounds but common expertise in pediatric injury is a reliable and accurate criterion standard for classifying pediatric injuries as abusive or accidental in a sample of children presenting to a pediatric emergency department.
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.