ArticleAcademic pediatrics2022
Electronic Health Record Tools to Identify Child Maltreatment: Scoping Literature Review and Key Informant Interviews.
Article in Academic pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electronic health records: managerial insights from an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Medicaid claims alone have high sensitivity but low specificity in identifying child abuse and neglect.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a Child Abuse Screen Performed by Nurses Among Young Children with Fractures Seen in a Pediatric Emergency Department.Rhode Island medical journal (2013) · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo prevent missed cases and standardize care, health systems are beginning to implement EHR-based screens (EHR-CA-S) and clinical decision supports systems (EHR-CA-CDSS) for the identification and management of child maltreatment. This study aimed to 1) document the existing research evidence on the performance of EHR-CA-S and EHR-CA-CDSS and 2) examine clinical perspectives regarding the use of such tools and factors that affect uptake.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO, Scopus, and CINAHL databases for English language articles published prior to November 2021 that describe and/or evaluated an EHR-CA-S and/or EHR-CA-CDSS involving 0 to 18-year olds. We performed semistructured interviews with 20 individuals who have experience in identifying, evaluating, and/or treating child maltreatment and/or conducting research on these topics.
resultsOur search identified 574 articles; 16 met inclusion criteria. Studies examined screening, alerts and triggers, and quality improvement. None evaluated long-term clinical outcomes. Sensitivity ranged from 0.14 to 1.00, specificity from 0.865 to 1.00, positive predictive value from 0.03 to 1.00 and negative predictive value from 0.55 to 1.00. A variety of EHR-CA-S and/or EHR-CA-CDSS have been implemented at institutions in our sample. Interviewees cited missed cases, policy requirements, and the lack of standardization of care as impetuses for adopting these tools, yet expressed concerns regarding insufficient evidence, bias, and time-intensiveness of implementation.
conclusionsInterviewees and the literature agree that current evidence does not support adoption of a particular CA-S or CA-CDSS. Further refinement and research on EHR-CA-S and EHR-CA-CDSS is necessary for these tools to be feasibly implemented and sustained, reliable for clinical practice, and not cause any unintentional harms.
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.