WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network investigators recently derived a highly sensitive clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma (AHT). WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:The performance of this AHT screening tool has been validated. Four clinical variables, readily available at the time of admission, detect pediatric AHT with high sensitivity in intensive care settings. abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To reduce missed cases of pediatric abusive head trauma (AHT), Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network investigators derived a 4-variable AHT clinical prediction rule (CPR) with sensitivity of .96. Our objective was to validate the screening performance of this AHT CPR in a new, equivalent patient population. METHODS:We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study. Applying the same inclusion criteria, definitional criteria for AHT, and methods used in the completed derivation study, Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network investigators captured complete clinical, historical, and radiologic data on 291 acutely headinjured children ,3 years of age admitted to PICUs at 14 participating sites, sorted them into comparison groups of abusive and nonabusive head trauma, and measured the screening performance of the AHT CPR. RESULTS:In this new patient population, the 4-variable AHT CPR demonstrated sensitivity of .96, specificity of .46, positive predictive value of .55, negative predictive value of .93, positive likelihood ratio of 1.67, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.09. Secondary analysis revealed that the AHT CPR identified 98% of study patients who were ultimately diagnosed with AHT.CONCLUSIONS: Four readily available variables (acute respiratory compromise before admission; bruising of the torso, ears, or neck; bilateral or interhemispheric subdural hemorrhages or collections; and any skull fractures other than an isolated, unilateral, nondiastatic, linear, parietal fracture) identify AHT with high sensitivity in young, acutely head-injured children admitted to the PICU. Pediatrics 2014;134:e1537-e1544

Significant race/ethnicity-based disparities in AHT evaluation and reporting were observed at only 2 of 18 sites and occurred almost exclusively in lower risk patients. In the absence of local confounders, these disparities likely represent the impact of local physicians' implicit bias.

A more completeunderstanding of the specific predictive qualities of isolated, discriminating, and reliable variables could improve screening accuracy. If validated, a reliable, sensitive, abusive head trauma clinical prediction rule could be used by pediatric intensivists to calculate an evidence-based, patient-specific estimate of abuse probability that can inform-not dictate-their early decisions to launch (or forego) an evaluation for abuse.

No abstract

Objective To estimate the impact of the PediBIRN (Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network) 4-variable clinical decision rule (CDR) on abuse evaluations and missed abusive head trauma in pediatric intensive care settings.Study design This was a cluster randomized trial. Participants included 8 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in US academic medical centers; PICU and child abuse physicians; and consecutive patients with acute head injures <3 years (n = 183 and n = 237, intervention vs control). PICUs were stratified by patient volumes, pair-matched, and randomized equally to intervention or control conditions. Randomization was concealed from the biostatistician. Physician-directed, cluster-level interventions included initial and booster training, access to an abusive head trauma probability calculator, and information sessions. Outcomes included "higher risk" patients evaluated thoroughly for abuse (with skeletal survey and retinal examination), potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (patients lacking either evaluation), and estimates of missed abusive head trauma (among potential cases). Group comparisons were performed using generalized linear mixed-effects models.Results Intervention physicians evaluated a greater proportion of higher risk patients thoroughly (81% vs 73%, P = .11) and had fewer potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (21% vs 32%, P = .05), although estimated cases of missed abusive head trauma did not differ (7% vs 13%, P = .22). From baseline (in previous studies) to trial, the change in higher risk patients evaluated thoroughly (67%/81% vs 78%/73%, P = .01), and potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (40%/21% vs 29%/32%, P = .003), diverged significantly. We did not identify a significant divergence in the number of estimated cases of missed abusive head trauma (15%/7% vs 11%/13%, P = .22).Conclusions PediBIRN-4 CDR application facilitated changes in abuse evaluations that reduced potential cases of missed abusive head trauma in PICU settings.