Display options
Share it on

Pediatrics. 2011 Jan;127(1):e47-52. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0298. Epub 2010 Dec 13.

Use of skeletal surveys to evaluate for physical abuse: analysis of 703 consecutive skeletal surveys.

Pediatrics

Shanna O Duffy, Janet Squires, Janet B Fromkin, Rachel P Berger

Affiliations

  1. Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA.

PMID: 21149429 PMCID: PMC4466842 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-0298

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The goals were to assess the use of the skeletal survey (SS) to evaluate for physical abuse in a large consecutive sample, to identify characteristics of children most likely to have unsuspected fractures, and to determine how often SS results influenced directly the decision to make a diagnosis of abuse.

METHODS: A retrospective, descriptive study of a consecutive sample of children who underwent an SS at a single children's hospital over 4 years was performed. Data on demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, SS results, and effects of SS results on clinical diagnoses were collected. A positive SS result was defined as a SS which identified a previously unsuspected fracture(s).

RESULTS: Of the 703 SSs, 10.8% yielded positive results. Children <6 months of age, children with an apparent life-threatening event or seizure, and children with suspected abusive head trauma had the highest rates of positive SS results. Of children with positive SS results, 79% had ≥1 healing fracture.

CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date to describe the use of the SS. Almost 11% of SS results were positive. The SS results influenced directly the decision to make a diagnosis of abuse for 50% of children with positive SS results. These data, combined with the high morbidity rates for missed abuse and the large proportion of children with healing fractures detected through SS, suggest that broader use of SS, particularly for high-risk populations, may be warranted.

References

  1. Pediatrics. 2009 May;123(5):1430-5 - PubMed
  2. Pediatrics. 2005 Apr;115(4):885-93 - PubMed
  3. Child Abuse Negl. 2004 Oct;28(10):1099-111 - PubMed
  4. Pediatrics. 2001 Jul;108(1):206-10 - PubMed
  5. Pediatrics. 1997 Mar;99(3):371-5 - PubMed
  6. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2006 Apr;22(4):211-4 - PubMed
  7. Theor Med Bioeth. 2004;25(4):277-310 - PubMed
  8. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008 Dec;24(12):816-21 - PubMed
  9. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125(1):60-6 - PubMed
  10. J Neurosurg. 2005 Jul;103(1 Suppl):61-8 - PubMed
  11. Child Abuse Negl. 2006 Apr;30(4):345-56 - PubMed
  12. Pediatrics. 2006 Feb;117(2):325-32 - PubMed
  13. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2008 Nov;47(9):912-8 - PubMed
  14. JAMA. 2003 Aug 6;290(5):621-6 - PubMed
  15. Pediatrics. 2005 Jul;116(1):e5-12 - PubMed
  16. Dev Neurosci. 2006;28(4-5):327-35 - PubMed
  17. Radiology. 1983 Feb;146(2):377-81 - PubMed
  18. J Trauma. 2004 Dec;57(6):1189-98; discussion 1198 - PubMed
  19. J Clin Forensic Med. 2006 Feb;13(2):55-9 - PubMed
  20. Pediatrics. 2009 Feb;123(2):e247-52 - PubMed
  21. JAMA. 1999 Feb 17;281(7):621-6 - PubMed
  22. Pediatrics. 1984 Dec;74(6):1075-8 - PubMed
  23. Pediatrics. 2008 Jul;122(1):125-31 - PubMed
  24. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2006 Apr;22(4):245-6 - PubMed
  25. Am J Emerg Med. 2001 Mar;19(2):122-4 - PubMed
  26. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007 Jul-Aug;17(4):648-53 - PubMed
  27. Am J Dis Child. 1990 Jan;144(1):58-60 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support