ArticlePediatric radiology2020
Growth recovery lines: a specific indicator of child abuse and neglect?
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrowth recovery lines are radiodense lines in long bones reported to be indicators of stress.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to understand the distribution, quantity and associations of growth recovery lines in children ages 0-24 months with high and low risk for child maltreatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of children ages 0-24 months who had skeletal surveys and an assessment for maltreatment. Growth recovery lines, fractures and osteopenia were assessed independently by two pediatric radiologists blinded to the abuse likelihood.
resultsOf the 135 children in this study, 58 were in the low-risk group, 26 were in the neglect group, and 51 were in the physical abuse group. Children in the neglected and physically abused groups had 1.73 times (95% confidence interval [CI] of 1.16, 2.59), P=0.007) and 1.84 times (95% CI 1.28, 2.63, P<0.001) more growth recovery lines than the low-risk group, respectively. Growth recovery lines occurred at an earlier age in the neglect group (age interaction P=0.03) and abuse group (age interaction P=0.01) compared to the low-risk group. The specificity for maltreatment in children with at least 10 growth recovery lines in the long bones was greater than 84%, while sensitivity was less than 35%. The most common locations for growth recovery lines were distal radius, proximal tibia and distal tibia.
conclusionIn the absence of a known major stressor, physical abuse and neglect should be considered in children younger than 24 months with at least 10 growth recovery lines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31522259What 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.