Screening injured children for physical abuse or neglect in emergency departments: a systematic review

J Woodman1, F Lecky, D Hodes

  • 1Centre for Evidence-based Child Health and MRC Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, UCL-Institute of Child Health, London, UK.

Insights

No single marker accurately identifies child abuse in emergency departments. Age, injury type, and repeat visits are unreliable screening tools for physical abuse or neglect in children.

Area of Science:

  • Pediatric Emergency Medicine
  • Child Abuse and Neglect Research
  • Clinical Diagnostics

Background:

  • Screening markers are utilized in emergency departments (EDs) to identify children requiring assessment for physical abuse or neglect.
  • This study systematically reviewed age, repeat attendance, and injury type as potential markers.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the accuracy of age, repeat attendance, and injury type as screening markers for physical abuse or neglect in injured children presenting to EDs.
  • To determine if these markers have a likelihood ratio (LR) of 10 or more, considered clinically useful.

Main Methods:

  • Conducted three systematic reviews of studies comparing markers in abused versus non-abused injured children.
  • Calculated likelihood ratios (LRs) for specific age groups, repeat ED attendance, and various injury types (head injury, bruises, fractures, burns).

Main Results:

  • Studies were of poor quality.
  • Infancy was a marker for abuse in severely injured/admitted children (LRs 7.7-13.0) but not strongly associated in general ED attendees (LR 1.5).
  • Repeat attendance (LRs 0.8-3.9) and injury type showed no substantial increase in the risk of abuse or neglect.

Conclusions:

  • No evaluated marker (infancy, injury type, repeat attendance) demonstrated sufficient accuracy (LR ≥ 10) for screening injured children in the ED for physical abuse or neglect.
  • Clinicians must recognize that many abused children may lack these characteristics, and many non-abused children may present with them.
  • Age, injury type, and repeat attendance information should be interpreted cautiously within the broader clinical context.
Abstract

Related Concept Videos