Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31797078›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Avoiding skull radiographs in infants with suspected inflicted injury who also undergo head CT: "a no-brainer?"

Andrew Martin, Michael Paddock, Christopher S Johns, Jessica Smith, Ashok Raghavan, Daniel J A Connolly, Amaka C Offiah

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Head Injury during Childbirth.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew MartinDepartment of Neuroradiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield, S10 2JF, UK.
Michael PaddockDepartment of Radiology, Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Gawber Road, Barnsley, S75 2EP, UK.
Christopher S JohnsDepartment of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield, S10 2JF, UK.
Jessica SmithThe Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
Ashok RaghavanDepartment of Radiology, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TH, UK.
Daniel J A ConnollyDepartment of Neuroradiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield, S10 2JF, UK.
Amaka C OffiahAcademic Unit of Child Health, University of Sheffield, Damer Street Building, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TH, UK. a.offiah@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8991-5036
Royal Hallamshire Hospital · GBSheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBBarnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess whether head CT with 3D reconstruction can replace skull radiographs (SXR) in the imaging investigation of suspected physical abuse (SPA)/abusive head trauma (AHT).

methodsPACS was interrogated for antemortem skeletal surveys performed for SPA, patients younger than 2 years, SXR and CT performed within 4 days of each other. Paired SXR and CT were independently reviewed. One reviewer analysed CT without and (3 months later) with 3D reconstructions. SXR and CT expert consensus review formed the gold standard. Observer reliability was calculated.

resultsA total of 104 SXR/CT examination pairs were identified, mean age 6.75 months (range 4 days to 2 years); 21 (20%) had skull fractures; two fractures on CT were missed on SXR. There were no fractures on SXR that were not seen on CT. For SXR and CT, respectively: PPV reviewer 1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 48-82% and 85-100%; reviewer 2, 67-98% and 82-100%; and NPV reviewer 1, 95%, CI 88-98% and 96-100%; reviewer 2, 88-97% and 88-98%. Inter- and intra-observer reliability were respectively the following: SXR, excellent (kappa = 0.831) and good (kappa = 0.694); CT, excellent (kappa = 0.831) and perfect (kappa = 1). All results were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

conclusionsCT has greater diagnostic accuracy than SXR in detecting skull fractures which is increased on concurrent review of 3D reconstructions and should be performed in every case of SPA/AHT. SXR does not add further diagnostic information and can be omitted from the skeletal survey when CT with 3D reconstruction is going to be, or has been, performed. KEY POINTS: • Head CT with 3D reconstruction is more sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of skull fractures. • Skull radiographs can be safely omitted from the initial skeletal survey performed for suspected physical abuse when head CT with 3D reconstruction is going to be, or has been, performed.

Indexed as

Child, PreschoolCraniocerebral TraumaFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalInfantInfant, NewbornMaleRadiographyReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSkullSkull FracturesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAbusive head traumaChild abusePhysical abuseSkull fractureTomography, spiral computed

Identifiers

PMID31797078
PMCPMC7033062
OpenAlexW2992183532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.