ArticleChild abuse & neglect2026
AHT diagnoses: The influences of clinical presentation and evidence of impact.
Article in Child abuse & neglect, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe frequency of abusive head trauma (AHT) diagnoses by child abuse pediatricians (CAPs), especially regarding external evidence of head impact, has been questioned.
objectivesTo compare CAP diagnoses in subjects with subdural hemorrhage (SDH) across clinical presentations, including subgroups with and without external evidence of head impact. Additionally, we aimed to describe subjects with SDH and concomitant suspicious injuries (CSI) without evidence of head impact. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingMulticenter retrospective study including subjects <24 months old with SDH.
methodsSubjects were divided into groups based on clinical presentations: Ill SDH only, Non-ill SDH only, and SDH + CSI. Groups were subcategorized based on presence/absence of external evidence of head impact. AHT diagnoses were compared across groups.
resultsOf the 492 study subjects, 386 (78%) were diagnosed with abuse. Of the 266 subjects without evidence of head impact, 206 (77%) were diagnosed with abuse. In both the total group and the subgroup without evidence of head impact, SDH + CSI subjects were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with abuse than Ill-SDH only and Non-ill SDH only subjects, with odds ratios ranging from 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-5.6) to 10.4 (95% CI 5.0-21.8). Of the 147 SDH + CSI subjects without evidence of head impact, 33% had severe non-retinal injury, such as high specificity and/or multiple fractures or abdominal injury.
conclusionsIn young children with SDH, many of whom are ill and/or have other concerning injuries, CAPs often do not diagnose abuse. Lack of evidence of head impact does not eliminate trauma as a cause of SDH.
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.