Untitled

Rangarajan, N.; Shams, Tanzid

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.12.017

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They concluded that neck injury could occur during severe shaking without impact but that it would not necessarily occur if the shaking caused brain injury. Rangarajan and Shams (2006) also pointed out these numerical miscalculations and unclear assumptions. They noted that Bandak referenced three presentations at a conference in which the chair of the workshops said the material should not be used as references.…”

Section: Biomechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “New Science” of Abusive Head Trauma

Lindberg

Dubowitz

Alexander

et al. 2019

Int. Journal on Child Malt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Claims that new science is changing accepted medical opinion about abusive head injury have been made frequently in the media, legal publications, and in legal cases involving abusive head trauma (AHT). This review analyzes recently published scientific articles about AHT to determine whether this new information has led to significant changes in the understanding, evaluation, and management of children with suspected AHT. Several specific topics are examined as follows: serious or fatal injuries from short falls, specificity of subdural hematoma for severe trauma, biomechanical explanations for findings, the specificity of retinal hemorrhages, the possibility of cerebral sinus thrombosis presenting with signs similar to AHT, and whether vaccines can produce such findings. We conclude (a) that the overwhelming weight of recent data does not change the fundamental consensus, (b) that abusive head trauma is a significant source of morbidity and mortality in children, (c) that subdural hematomas and severe retinal hemorrhages are commonly the results of severe trauma, (d) that these injuries should prompt an evaluation for abuse when identified in young children without a history of such severe trauma, and (e) that short falls, cerebral sinus thrombosis, and vaccinations are not plausible explanations for findings that raise concern for abusive head trauma.

show abstract

Section: Biomechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “New Science” of Abusive Head Trauma

Lindberg

Dubowitz

Alexander

et al. 2019

Int. Journal on Child Malt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Child Physical Abuse

Baxter

Lowen

2015

Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Child physical abuse is an all‐too‐common form of child maltreatment, second only to neglect. There are varying definitions of child physical abuse, but the most important point is that a child has sustained tissue injury. This can range from bruises to fractures to life‐threatening or fatal head trauma. Determining the incidence and prevalence of physical abuse is difficult for many reasons; national datasets almost certainly do not provide an accurate picture. There are multiple risk factors for child physical abuse, but children can be abused without any risk factors present. Diagnosing child physical abuse requires a thorough medical assessment including a detailed history, complete physical examination, and often ancillary studies such as labs and radiology studies. Abusive head trauma is the leading cause of death in abused children, and often leads to long‐term neurodevelopmental delays. Physically abused children may have short‐ and long‐term medical and mental health problems as a result of their experiences.

show abstract