Hyesun Park1,2, Rahul Gujrathi1,2, Babina Gosangi3, Richard Thomas4, Tianxi Cai5, Irene Chen2,6, Camden Bay1, Najmo Hassan1,2, Giles Boland1, Isaac Kohane7, Steven Seltzer1, Kathryn Rexrode8, Bharti Khurana9,10,11. 1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Trauma Imaging Research and Innovation Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Yale New Haven Health System, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Lahey Health Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Division of Women's Health, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. BKHURANA@BWH.HARVARD.EDU. 10. Trauma Imaging Research and Innovation Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. BKHURANA@BWH.HARVARD.EDU. 11. Division of Women's Health, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. BKHURANA@BWH.HARVARD.EDU.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the imaging findings of intimate partner violence (IPV)-related injury and to evaluate the role of longitudinal imaging review in detecting IPV. METHODS: Radiology studies were reviewed in chronological order and IPV-related injuries were recorded among 400 victims of any type of abuse (group 1) and 288 of physical abuse (group 2) from January 2013 to June 2018. The likelihood of IPV was assessed as low/moderate/high based on the review of (1) current and prior anatomically related studies only and (2) longitudinal imaging history consisting of all prior studies. The first radiological study date with moderate/high suspicion was compared to the self-reported date by the victim. RESULTS: A total of 135 victims (33.8%) in group 1 and 144 victims (50%) in group 2 demonstrated IPV-related injuries. Musculoskeletal injury was most common (58.2% and 44.5% in groups 1 and 2, respectively; most commonly lower/upper extremity fractures), followed by neurologic injury (20.9% and 32.9% in groups 1 and 2, respectively; most commonly facial injury). With longitudinal imaging history, radiologists were able to identify IPV in 31% of group 1 and 46.5% of group 2 patients. Amongst these patients, earlier identification by radiologists was provided compared to the self-reported date in 62.3% of group 1 (median, 64 months) and in 52.6% of group 2 (median, 69.3 months). CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal and neurological injuries were the most common IPV-related injuries. Knowledge of common injuries and longitudinal imaging history may help IPV identification when victims are not forthcoming. KEY POINTS: • Musculoskeletal injuries were the most common type of IPV-related injury, followed by neurological injuries. • With longitudinal imaging history, radiologists were able to better raise the suspicion of IPV compared to the selective review of anatomically related studies only. • With longitudinal imaging history, radiologists were able to identify IPV earlier than the self-reported date by a median of 64 months in any type of abuse, and a median of 69.3 months in physical abuse.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the imaging findings of intimate partner violence (IPV)-related injury and to evaluate the role of longitudinal imaging review in detecting IPV. METHODS: Radiology studies were reviewed in chronological order and IPV-related injuries were recorded among 400 victims of any type of abuse (group 1) and 288 of physical abuse (group 2) from January 2013 to June 2018. The likelihood of IPV was assessed as low/moderate/high based on the review of (1) current and prior anatomically related studies only and (2) longitudinal imaging history consisting of all prior studies. The first radiological study date with moderate/high suspicion was compared to the self-reported date by the victim. RESULTS: A total of 135 victims (33.8%) in group 1 and 144 victims (50%) in group 2 demonstrated IPV-related injuries. Musculoskeletal injury was most common (58.2% and 44.5% in groups 1 and 2, respectively; most commonly lower/upper extremity fractures), followed by neurologic injury (20.9% and 32.9% in groups 1 and 2, respectively; most commonly facial injury). With longitudinal imaging history, radiologists were able to identify IPV in 31% of group 1 and 46.5% of group 2 patients. Amongst these patients, earlier identification by radiologists was provided compared to the self-reported date in 62.3% of group 1 (median, 64 months) and in 52.6% of group 2 (median, 69.3 months). CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal and neurological injuries were the most common IPV-related injuries. Knowledge of common injuries and longitudinal imaging history may help IPV identification when victims are not forthcoming. KEY POINTS: • Musculoskeletal injuries were the most common type of IPV-related injury, followed by neurological injuries. • With longitudinal imaging history, radiologists were able to better raise the suspicion of IPV compared to the selective review of anatomically related studies only. • With longitudinal imaging history, radiologists were able to identify IPV earlier than the self-reported date by a median of 64 months in any type of abuse, and a median of 69.3 months in physical abuse.
Authors: Ann L Coker; Keith E Davis; Ileana Arias; Sujata Desai; Maureen Sanderson; Heather M Brandt; Paige H Smith Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Eva M M Hoytema van Konijnenburg; Maj Gigengack; Arianne H Teeuw; Tessa Sieswerda-Hoogendoorn; Sonja N Brilleslijper-Kater; Boudien C Flapper; Ramón J L Lindauer; Johannes B van Goudoever; Johanna H van der Lee Journal: Acta Paediatr Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 2.299