Clinical prediction rules for abusive head trauma: a systematic review

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorPfeiffer, Helena ; Crowe, Louise ; Kemp, Alison Mary ; Cowley, Laura Elizabeth ; Smith, Anne S, Babl, Franz E. on behalf of the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-20T17:36:12Z
dc.date.available2021-04-20T17:36:12Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.description.abstractObjective: Misdiagnosis of abusive head trauma (AHT) has serious consequences for children and families. This systematic review identifies and compares clinical prediction rules (CPredRs) assisting clinicians in assessing suspected AHT. Design: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases (January 1996 to August 2016). Externally validated CPredRs focusing on the detection of AHT in the clinical setting were included. Results: Of 110 potential articles identified, three studies met the inclusion criteria: the Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network (PediBIRN) 4-Variable AHT CPredR, the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool and the Pittsburgh Infant Brain Injury Score (PIBIS). The CPredRs were designed for different populations and purposes: PediBIRN: intensive care unit admissions (<3 years) with head injury, to inform early decisions to launch or forego an evaluation for abuse (sensitivity 0.96); PredAHT: hospital admissions (<3 years) with intracranial injury, to assist clinicians in discussions with child abuse specialists (sensitivity 0.72); and PIBIS: well-appearing children (<1 year) in the emergency department with no history of trauma, temperature <38.3°C, and ≥1 symptom associated with high risk of AHT, to determine the need for a head CT scan (sensitivity 0.93). There was little overlap between the predictive variables. Conclusion: Three CPredRs for AHT were relevant at different stages in the diagnostic process. None of the CPredRs aimed to diagnose AHT but to act as aids/prompts to clinicians to seek further clinical, social or forensic information. None were widely validated in multiple settings. To assess safety and effectiveness in clinical practice, impact analyses are required and recommended. (Author Abstract)en_US
dc.identifier.citationPfeiffer, Helena ; Crowe, Louise ; Kemp, Alison Mary ; Cowley, Laura Elizabeth ; Smith, Anne S, Babl, Franz E. on behalf of the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT). (2018). Archives of Disease in Childhood, 103(8), 776-783.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://orca.cf.ac.uk/109673/3/Systematic%20review%20for%20ORCA.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11212/5051
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherArchives of Disease in Childhooden_US
dc.subjectchild abuseen_US
dc.subjectphysical abuseen_US
dc.subjectresearchen_US
dc.subjecthead traumaen_US
dc.subjectdiagnosisen_US
dc.subjectsigns and symptomsen_US
dc.subjectInternational Resourcesen_US
dc.subjectAustraliaen_US
dc.subjectUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.titleClinical prediction rules for abusive head trauma: a systematic reviewen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Collections

CALiO Collection of Resources