You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 104, Issue 11
  • Why is there a multi-fold difference in diagnosis of abuse among infants with long bone fracture in East Anglia compared with Sweden?

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Postscript
Letter
Why is there a multi-fold difference in diagnosis of abuse among infants with long bone fracture in East Anglia compared with Sweden?
  1. Ulf Högberg1,
  2. Jacob Andersson2,
  3. Göran Högberg3,
  4. Ingemar Thiblin2
  1. 1 Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  2. 2 Forensic Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  3. 3 Formerly Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Unit, Deparment of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Professor Ulf Högberg; ulf.hogberg{at}kbh.uu.se

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-317232

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    The multicentre hospital study by Mitchell et al 1 provides interesting regional representative data on limb fractures and diagnosis of physical abuse among young children. Their study enables intercountry considerations of fractures and physical abuse. Abuse was diagnosed in 21.2% (28/132) with long bone fractures (femur/tibia/fibula, radius/ulna/humerus) at age younger than 12 months.1 Among Swedish infants, a corresponding proportion of 2.7% (57/2093) had an abuse diagnosis out of all long bone fractures.2 How is it that the East Anglia Region and Sweden had a multifold difference in the proportion of abuse diagnosis among those with …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors UH wrote the original draft of this letter. JA, GH and IT participated in the review and editing of the last version.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. This correct

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Data availability statement has been given in our published paper (ref. 2).

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    Linked Articles