Literature DB >> 35082111

Screening for pediatric abusive head trauma: Are three variables enough?

Kent P Hymel1, Wouter Karst2, Mark Marinello3, Bruce E Herman4, Terra N Frazier5, Christopher L Carroll6, Veronica Armijo-Garcia7, Matthew Musick8, Kerri Weeks9, Suzanne B Haney10, Afshin Pashai11, Ming Wang12.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The PediBIRN 4-variable clinical decision rule (CDR) detects abusive head trauma (AHT) with 96% sensitivity in pediatric intensive care (PICU) settings. Preliminary analysis of its performance in Pediatric Emergency Department settings found that elimination of its fourth predictor variable enhanced screening accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the AHT screening performances of the "PediBIRN-4" CDR vs. the simplified 3-variable CDR in PICU settings. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: 973 acutely head-injured children <3 years hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between February 2011 and March 2021.
METHODS: Retrospective, secondary analysis of the combined, prospective PediBIRN data sets. AHT definitional criteria and physicians' diagnoses were applied iteratively to sort patients into abusive vs. other head trauma cohorts. Outcome measures of CDR performance included sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, ROC AUC, and the correlation between each CDR's patient-specific estimates of AHT probability and the overall positive yield of patients' completed abuse evaluations.
RESULTS: Applied accurately and consistently, both CDR's would have performed with sensitivity ≥93% and negative predictive value ≥91%. Eliminating the PediBIRN-4's fourth predictor variable resulted in significantly higher specificity (↑'d ≥19%), positive predictive value (↑'d ≥8%), and ROC AUC (↑'d ≥5%), but a 3% reduction in sensitivity. Both CDRs provided patient-specific estimates of abuse probability very strongly correlated with the positive yield of patients' completed abuse evaluations (Pearson's r = 0.95 and 0.91, p = .13).
CONCLUSION: The PediBIRN 3-variable CDR performed with greater AHT screening accuracy than the 4-variable CDR. Both are good predictors of the results of patients' subsequent completed abuse evaluations.
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abusive head trauma; Child abuse; Clinical decision rule; Clinical prediction rule; Screening test

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35082111      PMCID: PMC8842560          DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Child Abuse Negl        ISSN: 0145-2134


  17 in total

1.  Validation of a clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma.

Authors:  Kent P Hymel; Veronica Armijo-Garcia; Robin Foster; Terra N Frazier; Michael Stoiko; LeeAnn M Christie; Nancy S Harper; Kerri Weeks; Christopher L Carroll; Phil Hyden; Andrew Sirotnak; Edward Truemper; Amy E Ornstein; Ming Wang
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Analysis of missed cases of abusive head trauma.

Authors:  C Jenny; K P Hymel; A Ritzen; S E Reinert; T C Hay
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-02-17       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Disparities in the evaluation and diagnosis of abuse among infants with traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Joanne N Wood; Matthew Hall; Samantha Schilling; Ron Keren; Nandita Mitra; David M Rubin
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  Derivation of a clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma.

Authors:  Kent P Hymel; Douglas F Willson; Stephen C Boos; Deborah A Pullin; Karen Homa; Douglas J Lorenz; Bruce E Herman; Jeanine M Graf; Reena Isaac; Veronica Armijo-Garcia; Sandeep K Narang
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.624

5.  Racial differences in the evaluation of pediatric fractures for physical abuse.

Authors:  Wendy G Lane; David M Rubin; Ragin Monteith; Cindy W Christian
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-10-02       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Prior opportunities to identify abuse in children with abusive head trauma.

Authors:  Megan M Letson; Jennifer N Cooper; Katherine J Deans; Philip V Scribano; Kathi L Makoroff; Kenneth W Feldman; Rachel P Berger
Journal:  Child Abuse Negl       Date:  2016-09-25

7.  Validation of the Pittsburgh Infant Brain Injury Score for Abusive Head Trauma.

Authors:  Rachel Pardes Berger; Janet Fromkin; Bruce Herman; Mary Clyde Pierce; Richard A Saladino; Lynda Flom; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Tom McGinn; Rudolph Richichi; Patrick M Kochanek
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 7.124

8.  What factors affect the identification and reporting of child abuse-related fractures?

Authors:  Wendy G Lane; Howard Dubowitz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  A Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed Abusive Head Trauma in Pediatric Intensive Care Settings.

Authors:  Kent P Hymel; Veronica Armijo-Garcia; Matthew Musick; Mark Marinello; Bruce E Herman; Kerri Weeks; Suzanne B Haney; Terra N Frazier; Christopher L Carroll; Natalie N Kissoon; Reena Isaac; Robin Foster; Kristine A Campbell; Kelly S Tieves; Nina Livingston; Ashley Bucher; Maria C Woosley; Dorinda Escamilla-Padilla; Nancy Jaimon; Lucinda Kustka; Ming Wang; Vernon M Chinchilli; Mark S Dias; Jennie Noll
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 6.314

10.  Validation of a Clinical Decision Rule to Predict Abuse in Young Children Based on Bruising Characteristics.

Authors:  Mary Clyde Pierce; Kim Kaczor; Douglas J Lorenz; Gina Bertocci; Amanda K Fingarson; Kathi Makoroff; Rachel P Berger; Berkeley Bennett; Julia Magana; Shannon Staley; Veena Ramaiah; Kristine Fortin; Melissa Currie; Bruce E Herman; Sandra Herr; Kent P Hymel; Carole Jenny; Karen Sheehan; Noel Zuckerbraun; Sheila Hickey; Gabriel Meyers; John M Leventhal
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-04-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.