• Kent P Hymel, Amanda K Fingarson, Mary Clyde Pierce, Kim Kaczor, Kathi L Makoroff, and Ming Wang.
• From the Department of Pediatrics, Penn State Health Children's Hospital, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.
• Pediatr Emerg Care. 2022 Jun 1; 38 (6): 269272269-272.

MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, secondary analysis of an existing, deidentified, prospective data set captured to derive a bruising CDR. Subjects were patients under 3 years with bruising and confirmed acute head trauma. An expert medical panel had previously identified patients with AHT. Measures of the CDR's AHT screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsExpert medical panel members had classified 78 of 117 eligible patients (67%) as AHT, 38 (33%) as non-AHT, and 1 as indeterminate. Excluding the indeterminate case, the PediBIRN-4 demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88-0.99), specificity of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.16-0.46), positive likelihood ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.10-1.67), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.04-0.46). Close inspection of the data revealed that 1 of the CDR's predictor variables had lowered specificity without impacting sensitivity. Eliminating this variable would have increased specificity to 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-0.93).ConclusionsThe PediBIRN 4-variable CDR demonstrated AHT screening sensitivity in the pediatric ED equivalent to pediatric intensive care unit and other inpatient settings, but lower specificity. Further study of a simplified 3-variable PediBIRN AHT screening tool for the ED setting is warranted.Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

33 keywords...

hide…