SynthesisBMJ open2025
Screening tools used by paediatric healthcare providers to identify child maltreatment by parents or caregivers: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of screening tools designed to identify child maltreatment by parents or caregivers in paediatric healthcare settings, particularly for use in early childhood or neonatal care.
designSystematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, Embase, Cinahl and Ovid Medline were searched for studies published up to June 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: studies evaluating screening tools intended for use by caregivers or healthcare professionals to identify child maltreatment in paediatric healthcare settings. Included tools targeted children under 18 years of age. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Key characteristics of included tools were extracted, including type of maltreatment assessed, number of items, tool format and the age range of the child population. Data on reliability and validity were synthesised narratively due to heterogeneity in methods and outcomes. QUALITY APPRAISAL: Risk of bias and the quality of Patient Reported Outcome Measure development were assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist, which also guided the grading of evidence strength.
resultsIn total, 1874 abstracts and 84 full-text articles were reviewed. 14 articles featuring 13 distinct screening tools were identified, most of which were used to detect physical abuse in emergency room settings. Only the Escape tool was evaluated in two studies, both of very good quality; the study evaluating the Pediatric Hurt-Insult-Threaten-Scream-Sex tool also demonstrated very good quality. The remaining studies varied in methodological quality and evidence strength. No tools were identified for children in neonatal care settings, and few were validated for children aged 0-3 years, none for neonatal care.
conclusionThis review highlights the limited number of validated tools suitable for identifying maltreatment in very young children and across different contexts, particularly neonatal care. Future research should address these critical gaps to better support the early identification of child abuse within diverse clinical settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (2023), registration number CRD42023483966.
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.