ArticleChild abuse & neglect2022
Screening for pediatric abusive head trauma: Are three variables enough?
Article in Child abuse & neglect, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical findings in young patients with head trauma: How strong is the evidence for abuse?International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Severe Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Presenting Characteristics: Abusive Versus Accidental Trauma.Journal of neurotrauma · 2025Article
- Validation of the PediBIRN-7 clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma.Child abuse & neglect · 2024Article
- Identification and Evaluation of Non-Accidental Trauma in the Pediatric Population: A Clinical Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- New Insights into the Diagnosis and Age Determination of Retinal Hemorrhages from Abusive Head Trauma: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe PediBIRN 4-variable clinical decision rule (CDR) detects abusive head trauma (AHT) with 96% sensitivity in pediatric intensive care (PICU) settings. Preliminary analysis of its performance in Pediatric Emergency Department settings found that elimination of its fourth predictor variable enhanced screening accuracy.
objectiveTo compare the AHT screening performances of the "PediBIRN-4" CDR vs. the simplified 3-variable CDR in PICU settings. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: 973 acutely head-injured children <3 years hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between February 2011 and March 2021.
methodsRetrospective, secondary analysis of the combined, prospective PediBIRN data sets. AHT definitional criteria and physicians' diagnoses were applied iteratively to sort patients into abusive vs. other head trauma cohorts. Outcome measures of CDR performance included sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, ROC AUC, and the correlation between each CDR's patient-specific estimates of AHT probability and the overall positive yield of patients' completed abuse evaluations.
resultsApplied accurately and consistently, both CDR's would have performed with sensitivity ≥93% and negative predictive value ≥91%. Eliminating the PediBIRN-4's fourth predictor variable resulted in significantly higher specificity (↑'d ≥19%), positive predictive value (↑'d ≥8%), and ROC AUC (↑'d ≥5%), but a 3% reduction in sensitivity. Both CDRs provided patient-specific estimates of abuse probability very strongly correlated with the positive yield of patients' completed abuse evaluations (Pearson's r = 0.95 and 0.91, p = .13).
conclusionThe PediBIRN 3-variable CDR performed with greater AHT screening accuracy than the 4-variable CDR. Both are good predictors of the results of patients' subsequent completed abuse evaluations.
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.