Appraisal of published guidelines in European countries addressing the clinical care of childhood sexual abuse: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) is a global public health problem with potentially severe health and mental health consequences. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) should be familiar with risk factors and potential indicators of CSA, and able to provide appropriate medical management. The WHO issued global guidelines for the clinical care of children with CSA, based on rigorous review of the evidence base. The current systematic review identifies existing CSA guidelines issued by government agencies and academic societies in the European Region and assesses their quality and clarity to illuminate strengths and identify opportunities for improvement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 10-database systematic review will be conducted according to the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines and will be reported according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Guidance for HCPs regarding CSA, written by a national governmental agency or academic society of HCPs within 34 COST Action 19106 Network Countries (CANC) and published in peer-reviewed or grey literature between January 2012 and November 2022, is eligible for inclusion. Two independent researchers will search the international literature, screen, review and extract data. Included guidelines will be assessed for completeness and clarity, compared with the WHO 2017/2019 guidelines on CSA, and evaluated for consistency between the CANC guidelines. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology will be used to evaluate CANC guidelines. Descriptive statistics will summarise content similarities and differences between the WHO guidelines and national guidelines; data will be summarised using counts, frequencies, proportions and per cent agreement between country-specific guidelines and the WHO 2017/2019 guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no individuals or protected health information involved and no safety issues identified. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022320747.

Traumatic Head Injury and the Diagnosis of Abuse: A Cluster Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Data guiding abusive head trauma (AHT) diagnosis rest on case-control studies that have been criticized for circularity. We wished to sort children with neurologic injury using mathematical algorithms, without reference to physicians' diagnoses or predetermined diagnostic criteria, and to compare the results to existing AHT data, physicians' diagnoses, and a proposed triad of findings. METHODS: Unsupervised cluster analysis of an existing data set regarding 500 young patients with acute head injury hospitalized for intensive care. Three cluster algorithms were used to sort (partition) patients into subpopulations (clusters) on the basis of 32 reliable (κ > 0.6) clinical and radiologic variables. P values and odds ratios (ORs) identified variables most predictive of partitioning. RESULTS: The full cohort partitioned into 2 clusters. Variables substantially (P < .001 and OR > 10 in all 3 cluster algorithms) more prevalent in cluster 1 were imaging indications of brain hypoxemia, ischemia, and/or swelling; acute encephalopathy, particularly when lasting >24 hours; respiratory compromise; subdural hemorrhage or fluid collection; and ophthalmologist-confirmed retinoschisis. Variables substantially (P < .001 and OR < 0.10 in any cluster algorithm) more prevalent in cluster 2 were linear parietal skull fracture and epidural hematoma. Postpartitioning analysis revealed that cluster 1 had a high prevalence of physician-diagnosed abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Three cluster algorithms partitioned the population into 2 clusters without reference to predetermined diagnostic criteria or clinical opinion about the nature of AHT. Clinical difference between clusters replicated differences previously described in comparisons of AHT with non-AHT. Algorithmic partition was predictive of physician diagnosis and of the triad of findings heavily discussed in AHT literature.

Paediatric femur fractures-the value of contextual information on judgement in possible child abuse cases: are we bias?

The majority of paediatric femur fractures result from accidental trauma; however, it is important to consider non-accidental trauma, especially in pre-ambulatory children. We study whether irrelevant contextual information subconsciously influences conclusions of healthcare professionals with respect to whether observations provide evidence for non-accidental trauma. A survey with nine radiographs of femur shaft fractures was designed. Two different clinical histories (vignettes) with contextual information were designed, non-abuse versus abuse context. One of both vignettes was randomly assigned to the radiograph shown to the participant, followed by a question with a 5-point answer scale, which represents a verbal expression of the likelihood ratio of the fracture regarding a non-accidental versus accidental cause. Participants were medical residents and staff members of different specialties from several Dutch hospitals. A total of 172 participants responded. The reported evidential strength of the vignettes with a non-abuse context was 0.19 (n = 784; 95%CI 0.10-0.28) and for the abuse context 0.94 (n = 764; 95%CI 0.86-1.02; p < 0.001). Women reported a stronger evidential strength than men, but both were influenced by context. Emergency department and paediatric doctors were more likely to decide that non-accidental trauma was the cause; paediatric radiologists were the least likely. Experience in years of practice and current function did not prevent participants from being bias.Conclusion: This study shows that the interpretation of medical results by healthcare professionals can be influenced by contextual information, such as low income and marital status, which are irrelevant to the decision as to whether abuse might have occurred. Given the same information about an injury, women, emergency department and paediatric doctors were more likely to decide that non-accidental trauma was the cause, while paediatric radiologists were least likely to decide this outcome. It is important to prevent contextual influence as much as possible, by recognizing it and implementing a management contextual information procedure. What is Known: • Contextual information is of possible influence on healthcare professionals in identifying non-accidental trauma. • Increased working experience is thought to be protective against this influence. What is New: • Contextual information influenced the interpretation of medical results by healthcare professionals regardless of work experience. • The interpretation of medical results by healthcare professionals is influenced by both affirmative and negative contextual information.

Estimating the Relevance of Historical Red Flags in the Diagnosis of Abusive Head Trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To replicate the previously published finding that the absence of a history of trauma in a child with obvious traumatic head injuries demonstrates high specificity and high positive predictive value (PPV) for abusive head trauma. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of a deidentified, cross-sectional dataset containing prospective data on 346 young children with acute head injury hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between 2010 and 2013, to estimate the diagnostic relevance of a caregiver's specific denial of any trauma, changing history of accidental trauma, or history of accidental trauma inconsistent with the child's gross motor skills. Cases were categorized as definite or not definite abusive head trauma based solely on patients' clinical and radiologic findings. For each presumptive historical "red flag," we calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratio (LR) with 95% CI for definite abusive head trauma in all patients and also in cohorts with normal, abnormal, or persistent abnormal neurologic status. RESULTS: A caregiver's specific denial of any trauma demonstrated a specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94), PPV of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.88), and a positive LR (LR+) of 4.83 (95% CI, 3.07-7.61) for definite abusive head trauma in all patients. Specificity and LR+ were lowest-not highest-in patients with persistent neurologic abnormalities. The 2 other historical red flags showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: A caregiver's specific denial of any trauma, changing history of accidental trauma, or history of accidental trauma that is developmentally inconsistent are each highly specific (>0.90) but may provide weaker support than previously reported for a diagnosis of abusive head trauma in patients with persistent neurologic abnormalities.

Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years.

OBJECTIVE: Combined paediatric and forensic medical expertise to interpret physical findings is not available in Dutch healthcare facilities. The Dutch Expertise Centre for Child Abuse (DECCA) was founded in the conviction that this combination is essential in assessing potential physical child abuse. DECCA is a collaboration between the three paediatric hospitals and the Netherlands Forensic Institute. DECCA works with Bayes' theorem and uses likelihood ratios in their conclusions. DESIGN: We present the implementation process of DECCA and cross-sectional data of the first 4 years. PARTICIPANTS: Between 14 December 2014 and 31 December 2018, a total of 761 advisory requests were referred, all of which were included in this study. An advisee evaluation over the year 2015 was performed using a self-constructed survey to gain insight in the first experiences with DECCA. RESULTS: 761 cases were included, 381 (50.1%) boys and 361 (47.4%) girls (19 cases (2.5%) sex undisclosed). Median age was 1.5 years (range 1 day to 20 years). Paediatricians (53.1%) and child safeguarding doctors (21.9%) most frequently contacted DECCA. The two most common reasons for referral were presence of injury/skin lesions (n=592) and clinical history inconsistent with findings (n=145). The most common injuries were bruises (264) and non-skull fractures (166). Outcome of DECCA evaluation was almost certainly no or improbable child abuse in 35.7%; child abuse likely or almost certain in 24.3%, and unclear in 12%. The advisee evaluations (response rate 50%) showed that 93% experienced added value and that 100% were (very) satisfied with the advice. CONCLUSION: Data show growing interest in the expertise of DECCA through the years. DECCA seems to be a valuable addition to Dutch child protection, since advisee value the service and outcome of DECCA evaluations. In almost half of the cases, DECCA concluded that child abuse could not be substantiated.

Estimating the probability of abusive head trauma after abuse evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based, patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability can inform physicians' decisions to evaluate, confirm, exclude, and/or report suspected child abuse. OBJECTIVE: To derive a clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma that incorporates the (positive or negative) predictive contributions of patients' completed skeletal surveys and retinal exams. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 500 acutely head-injured children under three years of age hospitalized for intensive care at one of 18 sites between 2010 and 2013. METHODS: Secondary analysis of an existing, cross-sectional, prospective dataset, including (1) multivariable logistic regression to impute the results of abuse evaluations never ordered or completed, (2) regularized logistic regression to derive a novel clinical prediction rule that incorporates the results of completed abuse evaluations, and (3) application of the new prediction rule to calculate patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability for observed combinations of its predictor variables. RESULTS: Applying a mean probability threshold of >0.5 to classify patients as abused, the 7-variable clinical prediction rule derived in this study demonstrated sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79) and specificity 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.92). Patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability for 72 observed combinations of its seven predictor variables ranged from 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) to 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Seven variables facilitate patient-specific estimation of abusive head trauma probability after abuse evaluation in intensive care settings.

Persistent Retinal Iron in Abusive Head Trauma.

Retinal hemosiderin deposition is a histologic indicator of sustained hemorrhage but cannot be used to precisely estimate the elapsed time since an episode of trauma. A 5-month-old male infant was admitted to hospital after acute deterioration. Examination revealed encephalopathy, subdural hematomas, and retinal hemorrhages consistent with abusive head trauma (AHT). At the age of 3, he was readmitted to hospital with spontaneous osteopenic fracture of the right femur. The patient deteriorated and died after unsuccessful resuscitation. Ophthalmopathological investigation showed atrophy of the retina and optic nerve and hemosiderin deposition in both eyes. Retinal hemosiderin deposition is currently generally assumed to disappear within 6-8 weeks after the occurrence of hemorrhage in AHT. This case report describes an infant with bilateral retinal hemosiderin depositions due to hemorrhages sustained from AHT occurring 32 months prior to death. Implications of this finding for the interpretation of retinal hemosiderin depositions in AHT are discussed.

Subdural hematomas: glutaric aciduria type 1 or abusive head trauma? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Glutaric aciduria type 1 (GA1) is a rare metabolic disorder of glutaryl-CoA-dehydrogenase enzyme deficiency. Children with GA1 are reported to be predisposed to subdural hematoma (SDH) development due to stretching of cortical veins secondary to cerebral atrophy and expansion of CSF spaces. Therefore, GA1 testing is part of the routine work-up in abusive head trauma (AHT). This systematic review addresses the coexistence of GA1 and SDH and the validity of GA1 in the differential diagnosis of AHT. METHODS: A systematic literature review, with language restriction, of papers published before 1 Jan 2015, was performed using Pubmed, PsychINFO, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were reported SDHs, hygromas or effusions in GA1 patients up to 18 years of age. Of 1599 publications, 20 publications were included for analysis. RESULTS: In total 20 cases, 14 boys and 6 girls, were included. In eight cases (40%) a child abuse work-up was performed, which was negative in all cases. Clinical history revealed the presence of trauma in eight cases (40%). In only one case neuroradiology revealed no abnormalities related to GA1 according to the authors, although on evaluation we could not exclude AHT. CONCLUSION: From this systematic review we conclude that SDHs in 19/20 children with GA1 are accompanied by other brain abnormalities specific for GA1. One case with doubtful circumstances was the exception to this rule.

Abusive head trauma in young children in the Netherlands: evidence for multiple incidents of abuse.

AIM: We investigated the prevalence of risk factors for and the prevalence of prior abuse in abusive head trauma victims in the Netherlands. METHODS: We performed a retrospective file review of all abusive head trauma cases in the Netherlands in which forensic medical expertise was requested by the courts, between 2005 and 2010. Outcome measures were risk factors and indicators for prior abuse. RESULTS: Eighty-nine cases were included; 62% boys, median age 3.5 months. Impact trauma was found in 48% of cases, with a male perpetrator in 79%. Prematurity, dysmaturity and twins/triplets were found in 27%, 23% and 10% of cases, respectively, maternal age under 20 years in 17%. Of the parents, 60% had completed only primary or secondary education, 38% of the families were known to child welfare authorities. There was evidence for prior abuse in 81% of the cases. CONCLUSION: The high number of families with prior abuse indicates that both the healthcare system and child welfare authorities failed to protect some of the children that have been in their care. Our results highlight the importance of training healthcare and child welfare professionals in recognizing physical abuse, as well as the importance of optimizing abusive head trauma prevention strategies.