Objective Misdiagnosis of abusive head trauma (AHT) has serious consequences for children and families. This systematic review identifies and compares clinical prediction rules (CPredRs) assisting clinicians in assessing suspected AHT.
Design We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases (January 1996 to August 2016). Externally validated CPredRs focusing on the detection of AHT in the clinical setting were included.
Results Of 110 potential articles identified, three studies met the inclusion criteria: the Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network (PediBIRN) 4-Variable AHT CPredR, the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool and the Pittsburgh Infant Brain Injury Score (PIBIS). The CPredRs were designed for different populations and purposes: PediBIRN: intensive care unit admissions (<3 years) with head injury, to inform early decisions to launch or forego an evaluation for abuse (sensitivity 0.96); PredAHT: hospital admissions (<3 years) with intracranial injury, to assist clinicians in discussions with child abuse specialists (sensitivity 0.72); and PIBIS: well-appearing children (<1 year) in the emergency department with no history of trauma, temperature <38.3°C, and ≥1 symptom associated with high risk of AHT, to determine the need for a head CT scan (sensitivity 0.93). There was little overlap between the predictive variables.
Conclusion Three CPredRs for AHT were relevant at different stages in the diagnostic process. None of the CPredRs aimed to diagnose AHT but to act as aids/prompts to clinicians to seek further clinical, social or forensic information. None were widely validated in multiple settings. To assess safety and effectiveness in clinical practice, impact analyses are required and recommended.
- child abuse
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors HP contributed to the design of the study, conducted the systematic review, and drafted and revised the article. LC, AMK and LEC contributed to the design of the study, reviewed the search, made substantial contributions to the interpretation and discussion of findings and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. JASS contributed to the design of the study and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. FEB had the initial study idea, contributed to the design of the study and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. FEB takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding The study was in part funded by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Centre of Research Excellence for Paediatric Emergency Medicine GNT1058560), Canberra, Australia; the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; and supported by the Victorian Government’s Infrastructure Support Program, Melbourne, Australia. FEB’s time was in part funded by a grant from the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation and a Melbourne Campus Clinician Scientist Fellowship, Melbourne, Australia and an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship.
Competing interests AMK and LEC were involved with the development of one of the clinical prediction rules described in this paper.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement The search strategy as well as the PRISMA checklists are available as supplementary files.