HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kleinman, P. L. Articles by Savageau, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kleinman, P. L. Articles by Savageau, J. A.

Suspected Infant Abuse: Radiographic Skeletal Survey Practices in Pediatric Health Care Facilities¹

¹ From the Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Mass (P.L.K., J.A.S.); and Department of Radiology, Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115 (P.K.K.). From the 2003 RSNA scientific assembly. Received October 8, 2003; revision requested December 11; revision received February 5, 2004; accepted March 2. Address correspondence to P.K.K. (e-mail: paul.kleinman@childrens.harvard.edu).

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Figure 1. Plot shows number of pediatric imaging examinations versus skeletal survey examinations performed annually at each facility.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Figure 2. Bar graph shows comparison of screen-film and digital imaging facilities in which pediatric skeletal survey examinations are performed.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Figure 3. Bar graph shows the number of images that constitute a pediatric skeletal survey examination.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Figure 4. Bar graph shows comparison of upper-extremity imaging protocols. Of note, the number of images signifies the total number obtained in each upper extremity separately. One refers to the entire upper extremity (shoulder to hand) on one image. Two (A) refers to the humerus and forearm together on one image and the hand on a separate image. Two (B) refers to the humerus on one image and the forearm and hand together on one image. Three refers to the humerus, forearm, and hand each on a separate image.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Figure 5. Bar graph shows comparison of lower-extremity imaging protocols. Of note, the number of images signifies the total number obtained in both lower extremities combined. One refers to both lower extremities (hips to feet) together on one image. Two refers to each lower extremity (hip to foot) exposed separately. Four (A) refers to femur and lower leg together on one image and the foot on a separate image. Four (B) refers to the femur on one image and the lower leg and foot together on a separate image. Six refers to each lower extremity exposed separately with three exposures.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Figure 6. Bar graph shows comparison of lateral spine imaging protocols. One (A) refers to cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine imaged together. One (B) refers to thoracic and lumbar spine imaged together with no cervical spine image. Two (A) refers to the cervical spine imaged separately and the thoracic and lumbar spine imaged together. Two (B) refers to thoracic spine and lumbar spine each imaged separately with no cervical spine image. Three refers to cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine each imaged separately.