ArticlePediatric quality & safety
A Standardized Peer Review Program Improves Assessment and Documentation of Child Sexual Abuse.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Emotional Health Assessments into Pediatric Care: Initial Learnings from an MOC Part 4 Activity.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Improving Diagnostic Quality of Anogenital Photodocumentation in Emergency Department Evaluations for Acute Child Sexual Assault.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective was to assess the impact of interventions associated with ongoing expert peer review on the quality of child abuse medical providers' written and photograph documentation in child sexual abuse cases.
methodsPediatricians participated in a HIPAA compliant blind peer review process on a web platform developed to provide the American Board of Pediatrics maintenance of certification. Participants submit sequential photograph and written documentation of child sexual abuse examinations over 1 year. Documentation includes genital examination descriptions and interpretation of findings. Reviewers evaluate the photographic quality and written documentation of examination findings utilizing a numerical rating system. Each case cycle is reviewed by one of four experts in child abuse who received training in a uniform evaluation process. Reviewers follow each case throughout three cycles of documentation, selecting from several interventions that have been customized to address the quality issues noted. The third and final cycle includes summary comments from the reviewer.
resultsForty-one participants completed the program at the time these data were collected. A paired
conclusionPeer review with interventions customized to address quality issues improved the quality of the assessment and documentation of child sexual abuse evaluations.
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.