Reflex anal dilatation: a clinical epidemiological evaluation

Abstract

The recent controversy surrounding the use of the reflex anal dilatation (RAD) sign in cases of suspected sexual abuse is a general illustration of the difficulties clinicians face in determining which symptoms, signs or laboratory tests to use in their daily practice. The evidence required fully to evaluate RAD is incomplete. The specificity in particular is uncertain. Sufficient evidence is, however, available to permit a quantitative examination of the test's performance under various circumstances. Our analysis suggests that, at the prevalence of anal abuse reported in one large series of children referred to paediatricians with suspected sexual abuse (13%), only if the specificity of the test is 99% or greater, may the positive predictive value of RAD be as high as 90%. At the likely prevalence of anal abuse in the general child population (less than 0.5%), however, an even higher specificity of 99.99% would be necessary to achieve a similar positive predictive value.

Interpretation of anogenital findings in the living child: Implications for the paediatric forensic autopsy

“…30 Conflict exists in the literature about the significance of anal dilation as a marker of previous sexual abuse with anal penetration. [31][32][33] Its presence should not be considered specific evidence of anal assault. 34 …”