An analysis of physicians' diagnostic reasoning regarding pediatric abusive head trauma
- PMID: 35567958
- PMCID: PMC10724711
- DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105666
An analysis of physicians' diagnostic reasoning regarding pediatric abusive head trauma
Abstract
Background: Physician diagnoses of abusive head trauma (AHT) have been criticized for circular reasoning and over-reliance on a "triad" of findings. Absent a gold standard, analyses that apply restrictive reference standards for AHT and non-AHT could serve to confirm or refute these criticisms.
Objectives: To compare clinical presentations and injuries in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT, and with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. physician diagnosed AHT not witnessed/admitted. To measure the triad's AHT test performance in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT.
Participants and setting: Acutely head injured patients <3 years hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between 2010 and 2021.
Methods: Secondary analyses of existing, combined, cross-sectional datasets. Probability values and odds ratios were used to identify and characterize differences. Test performance measures included sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values.
Results: Compared to patients with witnessed non-AHT (n = 100), patients with witnessed/admitted AHT (n = 58) presented more frequently with respiratory compromise (OR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.50-5.75); prolonged encephalopathy (OR 5.23, 95% CI: 2.51-10.89); torso, ear, or neck bruising (OR 11.87, 95% CI: 4.48-31.48); bilateral subdural hemorrhages (OR 8.21, 95% CI: 3.94-17.13); diffuse brain hypoxia, ischemia, or swelling (OR 6.51, 95% CI: 3.06-13.02); and dense, extensive retinal hemorrhages (OR 7.59, 95% CI: 2.85-20.25). All differences were statistically significant (p ≤ .001). No significant differences were observed in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT (n = 58) vs. patients diagnosed with AHT not witnessed/admitted (n = 438). The triad demonstrated AHT specificity and positive predictive value ≥0.96.
Conclusions: The observed differences in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT substantiate prior reports. The complete absence of differences in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. physician diagnosed AHT not witnessed/admitted supports an impression that physicians apply diagnostic reasoning informed by knowledge of previously reported injury patterns. Concern for abuse is justified in patients who present with "the triad."
Keywords: Abusive head trauma; Diagnosis.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Validation of a clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma.Pediatrics. 2014 Dec;134(6):e1537-44. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1329. Epub 2014 Nov 17. Pediatrics. 2014. PMID: 25404722
-
Validation of the PediBIRN-7 clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma.Child Abuse Negl. 2024 Jun;152:106799. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106799. Epub 2024 Apr 24. Child Abuse Negl. 2024. PMID: 38663048 Free PMC article.
-
The association of subcortical brain injury and abusive head trauma.Child Abuse Negl. 2022 Dec;134:105917. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105917. Epub 2022 Oct 26. Child Abuse Negl. 2022. PMID: 36308893
-
Abusive head trauma in Japan.Childs Nerv Syst. 2022 Dec;38(12):2387-2393. doi: 10.1007/s00381-022-05692-4. Epub 2022 Oct 4. Childs Nerv Syst. 2022. PMID: 36194265 Review.
-
Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children.Pediatr Radiol. 2018 Aug;48(8):1048-1065. doi: 10.1007/s00247-018-4149-1. Epub 2018 May 23. Pediatr Radiol. 2018. PMID: 29796797 Review.
Cited by
-
An Update to Biomechanical and Biochemical Principles of Retinal Injury in Child Abuse.Children (Basel). 2024 May 12;11(5):586. doi: 10.3390/children11050586. Children (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38790581 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Evidence for significant misdiagnosis of abusive head trauma in pediBIRN data.Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2023 Jan 10;6:100314. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100314. eCollection 2023. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2023. PMID: 36691664 Free PMC article.
-
Why admitted cases of AHT make a low quality reference standard: A survey of people accused of AHT in France.Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2022 Dec 29;6:100312. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100312. eCollection 2023. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2022. PMID: 36632195 Free PMC article.
-
Policy critique: The conflation of shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma - a measure with several negative effects.Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2025 Apr 11;10:100585. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100585. eCollection 2025 Jun. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2025. PMID: 40276491 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Badger S, Waugh MC, Hancock J, Marks S, & Oakley K (2020). Short term outcomes of children with abusive head trauma two years post injury: A retrospective study. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, 13, 241–253. - PubMed
-
- Barlow K, Thompson E, Johnson D, & Minns RA (2004). The neurological outcome of non-accidental head injury. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 7, 195–203. - PubMed
-
- Barlow KM, Thomson E, Johnson D, & Minns RA (2005). Late neurologic and cognitive sequelae of inflicted traumatic brain injury in infancy. Pediatrics, 116, e174–e185. - PubMed
-
- Bechtel K, Stoessel K, Leventhal JM, Ogle E, Teague B, Lavietes S, & Duncan C (2004). Characteristics that distinguish accidental from abusive injury in hospitalized young children with head trauma. Pediatrics, 114, 165–168. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical