Download PDFPDF
Imaging in suspected child abuse: necessity or radiation hazard?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Imaging in suspected child abuse

    Monika Bajaj and Amaka Offiah are to be commended for their thoughtful and helpful review of the benefits and risks of skeletal imaging in cases of suspected child abuse.(1) The diagnosis of child abuse is a complex process which requires an evidence-informed approach combining clinical acumen with collaborative multi-agency working. Skeletal imaging, including CT scans, provide a valuable tool for the clinician, but,...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re:The Skeletal Survey in suspected abuse- how necessary is it?
    • Amaka C Offiah, Reader, University of Sheffield
    • Other Contributors:
      • Monika Bajaj

    We thank Dr Cohn and his colleagues for their interest in our article and agree - as stated within our paper - that there is considerable variability in the reported fracture yield of skeletal surveys. This variability is not only dependent on methods of data display (as Dr Cohn et al illustrate), but also on epidemiological and demographic differences between reported study populations and on the process by which clinicia...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    The Skeletal Survey in suspected abuse- how necessary is it?
    • anthony cohn, Consultant paediatrican
    • Other Contributors:
      • Shaneil Patel, Adam Blackstock

    Drs Bajaj and Offiah present compelling reasons for performing skeletal surveys in all children under 2 years of age with unexplained injury, as recommended by the RCPCH guidelines. We have followed this practice for a number of years but an audit of our skeletal surveys came to a very different conclusion.

    We reviewed the results of the skeletal surveys requested in our hospital over a period of 7 years and 4...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.