Evidence Hub

Screening injured children for physical abuse or neglect in emergency departments: a systematic review

Woodman J, Lecky F, Hodes D, Pitt M, Taylor B, Gilbert R

Child: care, health and development, 2010

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening markers are used in emergency departments (EDs) to identify children who should be assessed for possible physical abuse and neglect. We conducted three systematic reviews evaluating age, repeat attendance and injury type as markers for physical abuse or neglect in injured children attending EDs.

METHODS: We included studies comparing markers in physically abused or neglected children and non-abused injured children attending ED or hospital. We calculated likelihood ratios (LRs) for age group, repeat attendance and injury type (head injury, bruises, fractures, burns or other). Given the low prevalence of abuse or neglect, we considered that an LR of 10 or more would be clinically useful.

RESULTS: All studies were poor quality. Infancy increased the risk of physical abuse or neglect in severely injured or admitted children (LRs 7.7-13.0, 2 studies) but was not strongly associated in children attending the ED (LR 1.5, 95% CI: 0.9, 2.8; one study). Repeat attendance did not substantially increase the risk of abuse or neglect and may be confounded by chronic disease and socio-economic status (LRs 0.8-3.9, 3 studies). One study showed no evidence that the type of injury substantially increased the risk of physical abuse or neglect in severely injured children.

CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that any of the markers (infancy, type of injury, repeated attendance) were sufficiently accurate (i.e. LR >or= 10) to screen injured children in the ED to identify…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free