ArticleChild abuse & neglect2019
Estimating the probability of abusive head trauma after abuse evaluation.
Article in Child abuse & neglect, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying children exposed to maltreatment: a systematic review update.BMC pediatrics · 2020Pooled it
- Medical findings in young patients with head trauma: How strong is the evidence for abuse?International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Guidance for a clinical and forensic diagnosis of pediatric abusive head trauma: a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Pathophysiological hypotheses of the triad in abusive infant shaking: A systematic review and analysis of corroborated cases.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Shaking into deficits: investigating behavioural and neuropathological outcomes associated with a novel preclinical model of infant abusive head trauma.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2025Article
- Promoting Health Equity for Children With Special Health Care Needs and Child Welfare Involvement.Hospital pediatrics · 2025Article
- Validation of the PediBIRN-7 clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma.Child abuse & neglect · 2024Article
- An analysis of physicians' diagnostic reasoning regarding pediatric abusive head trauma.Child abuse & neglect · 2022Article
- The role of retinal imaging in the management of abusive head trauma cases.International journal of legal medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnosis of Abusive Head Trauma : Neurosurgical Perspective.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2022Article
- Screening for pediatric abusive head trauma: Are three variables enough?Child abuse & neglect · 2022Article
- Article
- A Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed Abusive Head Trauma in Pediatric Intensive Care Settings.The Journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Advances and Future Directions of Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Abusive Head Trauma: A Review of the Literature.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based, patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability can inform physicians' decisions to evaluate, confirm, exclude, and/or report suspected child abuse.
objectiveTo derive a clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma that incorporates the (positive or negative) predictive contributions of patients' completed skeletal surveys and retinal exams. PARTICIPANTS AND
setting500 acutely head-injured children under three years of age hospitalized for intensive care at one of 18 sites between 2010 and 2013.
methodsSecondary analysis of an existing, cross-sectional, prospective dataset, including (1) multivariable logistic regression to impute the results of abuse evaluations never ordered or completed, (2) regularized logistic regression to derive a novel clinical prediction rule that incorporates the results of completed abuse evaluations, and (3) application of the new prediction rule to calculate patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability for observed combinations of its predictor variables.
resultsApplying a mean probability threshold of >0.5 to classify patients as abused, the 7-variable clinical prediction rule derived in this study demonstrated sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79) and specificity 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.92). Patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability for 72 observed combinations of its seven predictor variables ranged from 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) to 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99).
conclusionsSeven variables facilitate patient-specific estimation of abusive head trauma probability after abuse evaluation in intensive care settings.
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.