ArticleInternational journal on child maltreatment : research, policy and practice2019
The "New Science" of Abusive Head Trauma.
Article in International journal on child maltreatment : research, policy and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data-driven evidence shows truthful caregiver histories and significant overdiagnosis of abusive head trauma.Annals of the Child Neurology Society · 2023Article
- Why admitted cases of AHT make a low quality reference standard: A survey of people accused of AHT in France.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Preparing for court testimony.Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
- Abusive head trauma: neuroimaging mimics and diagnostic complexities.Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
- Denying the abusive head trauma denialists their day in court, one step at a time.Pediatric radiology · 2019Article
- Ocular findings in the evaluation of abusive head trauma in children.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Claims that new science is changing accepted medical opinion about abusive head injury have been made frequently in the media, legal publications and in legal cases involving abusive head trauma (AHT). This review analyzes recently published scientific articles about AHT to determine whether this new information has led to significant changes in the understanding, evaluation and management of children with suspected AHT. Several specific topics are examined: serious or fatal injuries from short falls; specificity of subdural hematoma for severe trauma; biomechanical explanations for findings; the specificity of retinal hemorrhages; the possibility of cerebral sinus thrombosis presenting with signs similar to AHT; and whether vaccines can produce such findings. We conclude: a) that the overwhelming weight of recent data does not change the fundamental consensus b) that abusive head trauma is a significant source of morbidity and mortality in children c) that subdural hematomas and severe retinal hemorrhages are commonly the result of severe trauma d) that these injuries should prompt an evaluation for abuse when identified in young children without a history of such severe trauma and e) that short falls, cerebral sinus thrombosis and vaccinations are not plausible explanations for findings that raise concern for abusive head trauma.
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.