122: Experience with Abdominal Injury: A Survey of Child Maltreatment Physicians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abdominal trauma is an uncommon and poorly recognized form of child abuse associated with a high risk of mortality. Abuse is considered as a possible cause when the mechanism of the injury is poorly explained and/or there are other indicators of physical abuse. Physicians may also screen for occult abdominal injuries in the context of other signs of physical abuse, however currently no recognized guideline exists for the identification of occult inflicted abdominal injuries The goal of this study was to describe the current practices of Canadian experts in Child Maltreatment in the assessment of abdominal injury. This information will help inform the future development of national guidelines on this topic. A 21- item survey was developed and reviewed for content. The anonymous electronic survey was sent to participants in the 4th Canadian Symposium on Advanced Practices in Child Abuse Pediatrics and to the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) Child Maltreatment section members. The survey contained questions on demographics, experience and current practices with cases of abdominal trauma and approach to clinical scenarios. The survey was completed by 46 of 162 individuals (54 Symposium participants and 108 Section members) for a response rate 28.4%. Respondents were primarily pediatricians (88.1%). Cases of abdominal trauma had been assessed by 65.9% of respondents, with 76.9% of these having seen one to five cases. Cases most commonly involved injuries to the liver (n=16 [61.5%]), intestine (n=13 [50%]), spleen (n=9 [34.6%]) and pancreas (n=8 [30.8%]). Occult solid organ and intestinal injuries were identified through screening bloodwork, however mesentery/vascular injuries were not. Most physicians (97%) sometimes or always ordered screening tests for abdominal injury in cases of suspected physical abuse. The most frequently ordered tests were AST (n=38 [97.4%]), ALT (n=37 [94.9%]), amylase (n=26 [66.7%]), lipase (n=26 [66.7%]) and urinalysis (n=26 [66.7%]). Respondents were most likely (65.8%) to recommend a CT scan if suspecting a possible visceral injury, however 26.3% recommended an ultrasound. Most respondents (81.6%) favoured a national guideline on this topic, with 50% indicating that there were areas of controversy/uncertainty that created difficulty in formulating a child maltreatment opinion on cases. This study provides a description of the current experiences and practices in cases of abdominal injury of Canadian child maltreatment physicians. There is substantial variability in number of cases assessed, organs involved, and medical testing used in assessments. Child maltreatment pediatricians support the need for a clinical guideline on this topic.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».