Pediatric abusive head trauma: A systematic review

23Citations
Citations of this article
71Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Abusive head trauma (AHT) represents a commonly misdiagnosed condition. In fact, there is no pathognomonic sign that allows the diagnosis in children. Therefore, it is such an important medico-legal challenge to evaluate reliable diagnostic tools. The aim of this review is to evaluate the current scientific evidence to assess what the best practice is in order to diagnose AHT. We have focused particularly on evaluating the importance of circumstantial evidence, clinical history, the use of postmortem radiological examinations (such as CT and MRI), and the performance of the autopsy. After autopsy, histological examination of the eye and brain play an important role, with attention paid to correlation with symptoms found in vivo.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.

14028Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Abusive head trauma in infants and children

385Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Abusive head trauma: Judicial admissions highlight violent and repetitive shaking

268Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Glymphatic System a Window on TBI Pathophysiology: A Systematic Review

29Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The role of retinal imaging in the management of abusive head trauma cases

10Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Animal models of pediatric abusive head trauma

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Maiese, A., Iannaccone, F., Scatena, A., Del Fante, Z., Oliva, A., Frati, P., & Fineschi, V. (2021). Pediatric abusive head trauma: A systematic review. Diagnostics. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/DIAGNOSTICS11040734

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 14

56%

Researcher 7

28%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

8%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 25

81%

Neuroscience 3

10%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 2

6%

Computer Science 1

3%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
References: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free