Sittig Judith S, Uiterwaal Cuno S P M, Moons Karel G M, Russel Ingrid M B, Nievelstein Rutger A J, Nieuwenhuis Edward E S, van de Putte Elise M
Department of Paediatrics, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Mental Health Care 'GGZ Centraal', Hilversum, The Netherlands.
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 22;6(3):e010788. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010788.
The aim of our diagnostic accuracy study Child Abuse Inventory at Emergency Rooms (CHAIN-ER) was to establish whether a widely used checklist accurately detects or excludes physical abuse among children presenting to ERs with physical injury.
A large multicentre study with a 6-month follow-up.
4 ERs in The Netherlands.
4290 children aged 0-7 years attending the ER because of physical injury. All children were systematically tested with an easy-to-use child abuse checklist (index test). A national expert panel (reference standard) retrospectively assessed all children with positive screens and a 15% random sample of the children with negative screens for physical abuse, using additional information, namely, an injury history taken by a paediatrician, information provided by the general practitioner, youth doctor and social services by structured questionnaires, and 6-month follow-up information.
Physical child abuse.
Injury due to neglect and need for help.
4253/4290 (99%) parents agreed to follow-up. At a prevalence of 0.07% (3/4253) for inflicted injury by expert panel decision, the positive predictive value of the checklist was 0.03 (95% CI 0.006 to 0.085), and the negative predictive value 1.0 (0.994 to 1.0). There was 100% (93 to 100) agreement about inflicted injury in children, with positive screens between the expert panel and child abuse experts.
Rare cases of inflicted injury among preschool children presenting at ERs for injury are very likely captured by easy-to-use checklists, but at very high false-positive rates. Subsequent assessment by child abuse experts can be safely restricted to children with positive screens at very low risk of missing cases of inflicted injury. Because of the high false positive rate, we do advise careful prior consideration of cost-effectiveness and clinical and societal implications before de novo implementation.
我们在急诊室开展的儿童虐待清单诊断准确性研究(CHAIN - ER)旨在确定一份广泛使用的检查表能否准确检测或排除因身体受伤前往急诊室就诊的儿童是否遭受身体虐待。
一项为期6个月随访的大型多中心研究。
荷兰的4家急诊室。
4290名因身体受伤前往急诊室就诊的0至7岁儿童。所有儿童均使用一份易于使用的儿童虐待检查表(索引测试)进行系统检测。一个国家专家小组(参考标准)使用额外信息,即儿科医生采集的受伤史、全科医生、青少年医生和社会服务机构通过结构化问卷提供的信息以及6个月的随访信息,对所有筛查呈阳性的儿童以及15%筛查呈阴性的儿童进行身体虐待的回顾性评估。
儿童身体虐待。
因忽视导致的伤害及帮助需求。
4290名儿童中有4253名(99%)家长同意随访。根据专家小组判定,受虐伤害的患病率为0.07%(3/4253),该检查表的阳性预测值为0.03(95%可信区间0.006至0.085),阴性预测值为1.0(0.994至1.0)。专家小组与儿童虐待专家在筛查呈阳性的儿童受虐伤害方面达成了100%(93%至100%)的一致意见。
因受伤前往急诊室就诊的学龄前儿童中罕见的受虐伤害病例很可能被易于使用的检查表检测到,但假阳性率非常高。后续由儿童虐待专家进行的评估可以安全地仅限于筛查呈阳性且漏诊受虐伤害病例风险极低的儿童。由于假阳性率高,我们确实建议在重新实施之前仔细事先考虑成本效益以及临床和社会影响。