An analysis of physicians' diagnostic reasoning regarding pediatric abusive head trauma

Kent P. Hymel,Stephen C. Boos,Veronica Armijo-Garcia,Matthew Musick,Kerri Weeks,Suzanne B. Haney,Mark Marinello,Bruce E. Herman,Terra N. Frazier,Christopher L. Carroll,Katelyn Even,Ming Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105666
2022-05-13
Abstract:Background Physician diagnoses of abusive head trauma (AHT) have been criticized for circular reasoning and over-reliance on a "triad" of findings. Absent a gold standard, analyses that apply restrictive reference standards for AHT and non-AHT could serve to confirm or refute these criticisms. Objectives To compare clinical presentations and injuries in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT, and with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. physician diagnosed AHT not witnessed/admitted. To measure the triad's AHT test performance in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT. Participants and setting Acutely head injured patients <3 years hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between 2010 and 2021. Methods Secondary analyses of existing, combined, cross-sectional datasets. Probability values and odds ratios were used to identify and characterize differences. Test performance measures included sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Results Compared to patients with witnessed non-AHT ( n = 100), patients with witnessed/admitted AHT ( n = 58) presented more frequently with respiratory compromise (OR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.50–5.75); prolonged encephalopathy (OR 5.23, 95% CI: 2.51–10.89); torso, ear, or neck bruising (OR 11.87, 95% CI: 4.48–31.48); bilateral subdural hemorrhages (OR 8.21, 95% CI: 3.94–17.13); diffuse brain hypoxia, ischemia, or swelling (OR 6.51, 95% CI: 3.06–13.02); and dense, extensive retinal hemorrhages (OR 7.59, 95% CI: 2.85–20.25). All differences were statistically significant ( p ≤ .001). No significant differences were observed in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT (n = 58) vs. patients diagnosed with AHT not witnessed/admitted ( n = 438). The triad demonstrated AHT specificity and positive predictive value ≥0.96. Conclusions The observed differences in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT substantiate prior reports. The complete absence of differences in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. physician diagnosed AHT not witnessed/admitted supports an impression that physicians apply diagnostic reasoning informed by knowledge of previously reported injury patterns. Concern for abuse is justified in patients who present with "the triad."
family studies,psychology, social,social work
What problem does this paper attempt to address?