Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 8, pp 1043–1047 | Cite as

Shaken baby syndrome is real

  • Peter J. Strouse
Editorial

Unequivocally, shaken baby syndrome is real. Unfortunately, controversy exists in the courtroom, in the media and online due to a few irresponsible individuals who continue to distort the medical literature and perpetuate implausible theories. There is little controversy in the medical community [1]. There is no “new science” that disproves the existence of shaken baby syndrome or abusive head trauma. There is new science that further defines what we see with shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma, why we see it and how to better differentiate abusive injury from other processes.

The findings of subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage and hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy remain highly suggestive of shaken baby syndrome, particularly in the absence of evidence of an impact injury [2, 3, 4, 5]. Although this “triad” is not absolutely diagnostic of child abuse, it is highly suggestive of the diagnosis. In the absence of an obvious alternative explanation, the presence of any one, any combination of, or all three of these findings warrants a comprehensive, multidisciplinary medical and social workup and evaluation for child abuse. Of course, this does not obviate the need for a concomitant and equally comprehensive workup for diagnoses other than child abuse that might plausibly explain the child’s condition. Readers are referred to excellent essays by Dias [6] and Vinchon [2] regarding the validity of shaken baby syndrome as a diagnosis.

A recent systematic review from the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) has questioned the existence of shaken baby syndrome [7, 8]. This study has many issues, beginning with legitimate questions of bias in its conception and backing [9]. One must seriously question the credibility of any study that blatantly gives credence to widely discredited references [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Other issues with the study include: (1) an artificially constrained gold standard of “admitted or confessed traumatic shaking or other trauma” (“other trauma” not defined); (2) a suboptimal search strategy; (3) a broad dismissal of the literature without adequate definition of inclusion/exclusion criteria for doing so; (4) rejection of cases with non-central-nervous-system findings — “did not include studies whose focus was on infants also suffering from fractures, bruises or other signs of trauma” [15]; (5) use of “retinal hemorrhage” as a generic term; (6) discounting of child protection team evaluation as “circular,” criteria not defined; (7) exclusion of references with fewer than 10 cases relative to “the triad” but inclusion of references with fewer cases, and even reports of a single case, as evidence for alternative diagnoses, with no assessment of quality; (8) use of “the triad” as a strawman and thus asking a clinically irrelevant question — ignoring that the diagnosis is never based on “the triad” only, but rather on a comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation [16, 17, 18]; (9) panel composition not inclusive of pertinent expertise — no pediatric radiologist, no pediatric neuroradiologist, no pediatric ophthalmologist, no child abuse pediatrician; (10) refusal of offered external peer review by multiple organizations with subject matter expertise, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons (ASPN), the British Society of Paediatric Radiology (BSPR), the European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR), the Norwegian Pediatric Association (NPA), the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) and the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) [17, 18]. Essays by Saunders et al. [17] and DeBelle et al. [18] fully expose the many methodological flaws of the SBU study [7] and subsequent Acta Paediatrica paper [8]. DeBelle et al. [18] described the SBU study as “flawed, to the extent that children’s lives may be put at risk” and called for the withdrawal of the study “for the sake of unbiased protection of children.”

Numerous authors have appropriately questioned the validity of the SBU study [9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Responses from the SBU authors to these challenges demonstrate the biases and lack of objectivity of the SBU author group [15, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. It should be noted that the Swedish study in no way disproves the existence of shaken baby syndrome or abusive head trauma. Moreover, it fails to provide any coherent evidence base whatsoever for any alternative explanation for the combined findings of subdural hematoma, hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy and retinal hemorrhage.

All retinal hemorrhages are not the same. Innumerable bilateral, diffuse, multilayered retinal hemorrhages extending to the periphery are highly specific for child abuse [36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. Retinal hemorrhage has been reported with birth, accidental trauma, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, increased intracranial pressure, coagulapathy and many other disease processes; however, with these etiologies, retinal hemorrhage is overwhelmingly much less prominent and clearly different from that occurring with severe abusive trauma [36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. Although retinal hemorrhage is not reliably evaluated by imaging, the finding is often seen clinically in corroboration with what we do see on imaging.

Within the medical literature, a large number of confessed cases of shaken baby syndrome, abusive head trauma and child abuse are documented [41, 42, 43, 44]. Those working on child protection teams in pediatric institutions frequently encounter confessed cases. Simply running a Google search of the internet for “shaken baby” or a similar term turns up innumerable cases of confessed abusive head trauma reported in the news media. As noted by Dias [6], it is implausible to think that these hundreds (if not thousands) of confessions are false when they are so eerily similar, time after time after time after time...

Biomedical simulations fail to account for complexity, variability and dynamicity of the infant head and neck. Such models also do not account for the variability and uncertainty of external insults. While biomechanical models do help us to understand response of the body to external insults, it is not surprising that different biomechanical simulations contradict one another given the implausibility of accurately modelling the human body and the assumptions that must be made with any given biomechanical model [45, 46, 47, 48, 49]. No reputable biomechanical studies disprove the existence of abusive head trauma or shaken baby syndrome.

Shaken baby syndrome denialists conveniently exclude abusive head trauma cases with associated skeletal trauma [7, 8, 50]; however, abusive head trauma in the form of shaken baby syndrome is frequently accompanied by skeletal trauma [3, 51, 52, 53]. Others [54, 55, 56] have put forth rickets and vitamin D deficiency as an explanation for the skeletal findings of child abuse even though such findings are clearly not caused by rickets [57, 58, 59, 60, 61]. Such claims are pure fabrication. Needless to say, the diagnosis of rickets, though moot, would not explain fatal head injury.

In 2009, the term “abusive head trauma” was adopted by the AAP for clarity [62]. This was necessary because shaking trauma only accounts for part of the spectrum of abusive head trauma and the term “shaken baby syndrome” was often misapplied to infants who suffered other injuries instead of or in addition to shaking injury. Impact injury and neglect frequently accompany shaking injury. “Abusive head trauma” is a broader and more inclusive term than “shaken baby syndrome” and accounts for the myriad ways that an infant’s head can suffer at the hands of an abuser, not just limited to shaking. The introduction of this term in absolutely no way discounts the existence of shaken baby syndrome [62]. Misstatements regarding adoption of the term “abusive head trauma” are illustrative of how denialists distort the truth [50, 63, 64, 65].

One role of medical societies is to educate and provide guidance for medical and non-medical fact-seekers on important aspects of medicine. Multidisciplinary reviews and consensus statements provide clarity on challenging subjects. In this issue of Pediatric Radiology, a multidisciplinary author group has provided a critical review of abusive head trauma in light of recent challenges by denialists [66]. The review addresses common misconceptions and challenges put forth by the denialists. This review is supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC), the American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology (ASPNR), the European Society of Neuroradiology (ESNR), the European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR), the Japanese Pediatric Society (JPS), the Norwegian Pediatric Association (NPA), the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and the Swedish Paediatric Society. Review by the general membership of the SPR incurred negligible dissent. As with the recent paper by Narang et al. [1] surveying pediatric health care providers, these endorsements provide substantial evidence of the overwhelming acceptance that shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma are very real and very common.

There is much that we don’t know about abusive head trauma. Further study on the pathophysiology is needed. Why do some infants have fatal head injury accompanied by characteristic fractures, others have fatal head injury and no fractures and yet others have characteristic fractures and seemingly no head injury? What is the pathophysiology of hypoxemic–ischemic encephalopathy? What roles do injuries to the brainstem, cervical spinal cord, cranial nerves and upper spinal nerve roots play? What are the long-term consequences of non-fatal abusive head trauma? Does shaken baby syndrome cause chronic traumatic encephalopathy? How do we increase our certainty in diagnosis when child abuse is present and when it is not? How do we better differentiate abusive head trauma from its differential diagnoses?

Research in child abuse is challenging. Future studies need to minimize real or perceived circular reasoning. Data need to be presented with assumptions and limitations explicitly stated and discussed.

The diagnosis of abusive head trauma in children is not solely based on the findings of subdural hematoma, hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy and retinal hemorrhage — it never has been. The diagnosis of abusive head trauma is based on a thorough medical, forensic and social investigation that includes the exclusion of alternative diagnoses, underlying disease and accidental trauma [17, 67, 68]. Quoting Saunders et al. [17], the “rigorous diagnostic approach” includes a “careful review of all available data, often including data identified and assessed by a dedicated multidisciplinary team, a constellation of imaging findings in the brain, bones, neck, spine and abdomen, funduscopic findings, interviews with caregivers, forensic data (including postmortem studies), the presence of other malicious injuries (e.g., burns, bite marks) and the exclusion of underlying diseases and accidental injury.” Responsible and reputable medical professionals are extremely careful in making the diagnosis of abusive head trauma and not misdiagnosing another condition as abusive head trauma. Appropriate differential diagnoses are always considered. Not infrequently, and probably more often than not, a diagnosis of abusive head trauma is excluded or remains uncertain due to lack of corroborative findings. Valid cases of misdiagnosis of abusive head trauma with reputable proof of another diagnosis are extremely rare.

As a society, our focus needs to shift toward better prevention, as well. Abusive head trauma is a leading cause of preventable mortality and morbidity in young children [69]. Previously normal children are rendered dead or permanently disabled in an instant. This need not happen. If we could simply prevent child abuse (infinitely more easily said than done), this debate would not be necessary. On that, we can agree.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the late Thomas L. Slovis, MD, for his helpful and inspiring review of an intermediate draft of this editorial. Tom’s passion for the care and protection of the abused child was exemplary, as was his willingness to confront those who irresponsibly threaten the health and safety of these vulnerable patients and their families.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Narang SK, Estrada C, Greenberg S et al (2016) Acceptance of shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma as medical diagnoses. J Pediatr 177:273–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vinchon M (2017) Shaken baby syndrome: what certainty do we have? Childs Nerv Syst 33:1721–1733Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maguire S, Pickerd N, Farewell D et al (2009) Which clinical features distinguish inflicted from non-inflicted brain injury? A systematic review. Arch Dis Child 94:860–867CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kemp AM, Jaspan T, Griffiths J et al (2011) Neuroimaging: what neuroradiological features distinguish abusive from non-abusive head trauma? A systematic review. Arch Dis Child 96:1103–1112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reece RM, Sege R (2000) Childhood head injuries: accidental or inflicted? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 154:11–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dias MS (2011) The case for shaking. In: Jenny C (ed) Child abuse and neglect: diagnosis, treatment and evidence. Saunders/Elsevier, St. Louis, pp 364–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) (2016) Traumatic shaking: the role of the triad in medical investigations of suspected traumatic shaking – a systematic review SBU assessment — report 255E/2016. http://www.sbu.se/contentassets/09cc34e7666340a59137ba55d6c55bc9/traumatic_shaking_2016.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2018
  8. 8.
    Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg et al (2017) Insufficient evidence for ‘shaken baby syndrome’ — a systematic review. Acta Paediatr 106:1021–1027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Narang SK, Greeley CS (2017) Lynøe et al. — #theRestoftheStory. Acta Paediatr 106:1047–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnes PD, Galaznik J, Gardner H, Shuman M (2010) Infant acute life-threatening event — dysphagic choking versus nonaccidental injury. Semin Pediatr Neurol 17:7–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edwards GA (2015) Mimics of child abuse: can choking explain abusive head trauma? J Forensic Leg Med 35:33–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greeley CS (2010) Letter to the editor. Semin Pediatr Neural 17:275–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paterson CR, Monk EA (2013) Temporary brittle bone disease: association with intracranial bleeding. J Pediatr Endocr Met 26:417–426Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mendelson KL (2005) Critical review of ‘temporary brittle bone disease’. Pediatr Radiol 35:1036–1040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lynøe N, Rosén M, Elinder G et al (2018) Pouring out the dirty bathwater without throwing away either the baby or its parents. Commentary to Saunders et al. Pediatr Radiol 48:284–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McKee M (2010) How the growth of denialism undermines public health. BMJ 341:c6950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saunders D, Raissaki M, Servaes S et al (2017) Throwing the baby out with the bath water — response to the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) report on traumatic shaking. Pediatr Radiol 47:1386–1389CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeBelle GD, Maguire S, Watts P et al (2018) Abusive head trauma and the triad: a critique on behalf of RCPCH of ‘traumatic shaking: the role of the triad in medical investigations of suspected traumatic shaking’. Arch Dis Child.  https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-313855
  19. 19.
    Ludvigsson J (2017) Extensive shaken baby syndrome review provides a clear signal that more research is needed. Acta Paediatr 106:1028–1030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lucas S, Bärtas A, Bonaamy AE et al (2017) The way forward in addressing abusive head trauma in infants — current perspectives from Sweden. Acta Paediatr 106:1033–1035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levin AV (2017) The SBU report: a different view. Acta Paediatr 106:1037–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hellgren K, Hellström A, Hard A-L et al (2017) The new Swedish report on shaken baby syndrome is misleading. Acta Paediatr 106:1040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bilo RAC, Banaschak S, Herrmann B et al (2017) Using the table in the Swedish review on shaken baby syndrome will not help courts deliver justice. Acta Paediatr 106:1043–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fleming P, Byard (2018) Subdural haemorrhage in infants: abuse or natural causes? The importance of thorough child death review. Acta Paediatr 107:382–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Offiah AC, Servaes S, Adamsbaum CS et al (2017) Initial response of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology and Society for Pediatric Radiology to the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services’ document on the triad of shaken baby syndrome. Pediatr Radiol 47:369–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg B et al (2017) Authors’ overarching reply to all the response receive to the systematic literature review on shaken baby syndrome. Acta Paediatr 106:1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg B et al (2017) What are acceptable conclusions? Response to Dr. Ludvigsson. Acta Paediatr 2017:1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg B et al (2017) Conflicts of interest issues. Response to Lucas et al. Acta Paediatr 106:1036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg B et al (2017) The scientific evidence regarding retinal hemorrhages. Response to Hellgren et al. and Levin. Acta Paediatr 106:1041–1042CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg B et al (2017) A misunderstanding. Response to Dr. Bilo et al. Acta Paediatr 106:1046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg B et al (2017) The shaken baby syndrome report was not the result of a conspiracy. Response to Dr. Narang et al. Acta Paediatr 106:1050–1051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg B et al (2017) Is accepting circular reasoning in shaken baby studies bad science or misconduct? Acta Paediatr 106:1445–1446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosén M, Lynøe N, Elinder G et al (2017) Shaken baby syndrome and the risk of losing scientific scrutiny. Acta Paediatr 106:1905–1908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lynøe N, Eriksson A (2018) Consensus should be adapted to evidence and not vice-versa. Acta Paediatr.  https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14247
  35. 35.
    Lynøe N, Eriksson A (2018) »Triaden« räcker inte för att diagnostisera skakvåld - Mycket svagt vetenskapligt underlag – felaktiga bedömningar med under- och överdiagnostik kan få ödesdigra konsekvenser ["Triad" is not enough to diagnose traumatic shaking — very weak scientific evidence — incorrect assessments of under- and overdiagnosis can have fatal consequences]. Lakartidningen 22:115Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Levin AV, Christian CW, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, Section on Ophthalmology (2010) Clinical report — the eye examination in the evaluation of child abuse. Pediatrics 126:376–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Levin AV (2010) Retinal hemorrhage in abusive head trauma. Pediatrics 126:961–970CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Watts P, Child Maltreatment Guideline Working Party of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists UK (2013) Abusive head trauma and the eye in infancy. Eye 27:1227–1229CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maguire SA, Watts PO, Shaw AD et al (2013) Retinal haemorrhages and related findings in abusive and non-abusive head trauma: a systematic review. Eye 27:28–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Binenbaum G, Forbes BJ (2014) The eye in child abuse: key points on retinal hemorrhages and abusive head trauma. Pediatr Radiol 44:S571–S577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Starling SP, Patel S, Burke BL et al (2004) Analysis of perpetrator admissions to inflicted traumatic brain injury in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 158:454–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Adamsbaum C, Grabar S, Mejean N et al (2008) Abusive head trauma: judicial admissions highlight violent and repetitive shaking. Pediatrics 126:546–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Biron D, Shelton D (2005) Perpetrator accounts in infant abusive head trauma brought about by a shaking event. Child Abuse Negl 29:1347–1358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vinchon M, de Foort-Dhellemmes S, Desurmont M, Delestret I (2010) Confessed abuse versus witnessed accidents in infants: comparison of clinical, radiological, and ophthalmological data in corroborated cases. Childs Nerv Syst 26:637–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jenny CA, Bertocci G, Fukuda T et al (2017) Biomechanical response of the infant head to shaking: an experimental investigation. J Neurotrauma 34:1579–1588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Duhaime AC, Gennarelli TA, Thibault LE et al (1987) The shaken baby syndrome — a clinical, pathological, and biomechanical study. J Neurosurg 66:409–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Prange MT, Coats B, Duhaime AC, Margulies SS (2003) Anthropomorphic simulations of falls, shakes, and inflicted impacts in infants. J Neurosurg 99:143–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cory CZ, Jones BM (2003) Can shaking alone cause fatal brain injury? A biomechanical assessment of the Duhaime shaken baby model. Med Sci Law 43:316–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wolfson DR, McNally DS, Cliffort MJ, Vloeberghs M (2005) Rigid-body modeling of shaken baby syndrome. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 219:63–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tuerkheimer D (2014) Flawed convictions: “shaken baby syndrome” and the inertia of injustice. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barber I, Kleinman PK (2014) Imaging of skeletal injuries associated with abusive head trauma. Pediatr Radiol 44:S613–S620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Piteau SJ, Ward MG, Barrowman NJ, Plint AC (2012) Clinical and radiographic characteristics associated with abusive and nonabusive head trauma: a systematic review. Pediatrics 130:315–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Maguire SA, Kemp AM, Lumb RC, Farewell DM (2011) Estimating the probability of abusive head trauma: a pooled analysis. 128:e550–e564Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ayoub DM, Hyman C, Cohen M, Miller M (2014) A critical review of the classic metaphyseal lesion: traumatic or metabolic? AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:185–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Keller KA, Barnes PD (2008) Rickets vs. abuse: a national and international epidemic. Pediatr Radiol 38:1210–1216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Paterson CR (2015) Fractures in rickets due to vitamin D deficiency. Curr Orthopaed Practice 26:261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Slovis TL, Chapman S (2008) Evaluating the data concerning vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency and child abuse. Pediatr Radiol 38:1221–1224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Feldman K (2009) Commentary on “congenital rickets” article. Pediatr Radiol 39:1127–1129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Strouse PJ (2013) ‘Keller and Barnes’ after 5 years — still inadmissible as evidence. Pediatr Radiol 43:1423–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Servaes S, Brown SD, Choudhary AK et al (2016) The etiology and significance of fractures in infants and young children: a critical multidisciplinary review. Pediatr Radiol 46:591–600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Perez-Rossello JM, McDonald AG, Rosenberg AE et al (2015) Absence of rickets in infants with fatal abusive head trauma and classic metaphyseal lesions. Radiology 275:810–821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Christian CW, Block R, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect (2009) Abusive head trauma in infants and children. Pediatrics 123:1409–1411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Moran DA, Findley KA, Barnes PD, Squier W (2012) Shaken baby syndrome, abusive head trauma, and actual innocence: getting it right. Hous J Health L & Pol’y 12:209–312Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gabaeff SC (2011) Challenging the pathophysiologic connection between subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage and shaken baby syndrome. West J Emerg Med 12:144–158PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tuerkheimer D (2010) Anatomy of a misdiagnosis. The New York Times, September 21:A31Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Choudhary AK, Servaes S, Slovis TL et al (2018) Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children. Pediatr Radiol  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-018-4149-1
  67. 67.
    Christian CW, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect (2015) The evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Pediatrics 135:566–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Flaherty EG, Perez-Rossello JM, Levine MA et al (2014) Evaluating children with fracture for child physical abuse. Pediatrics 133:e477–e489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2018) Child maltreatment 2016. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2016.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2018

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Pediatric Radiology, C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Room 3-231,Department of RadiologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations