Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 28 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2279
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2279
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The systematic review by Kemp et al of skeletal fractures in children and the accompanying editorial gloss over the substantial medical uncertainties in this area that result in parents being wrongfully accused of injuring their children.1 2 It might seem self evident that deliberately inflicted injury must be the probable cause of an "unexplained" fracture—where "unexplained" in this context means there is no plausible history of accidental trauma. and those conditions that predispose to bone fragility—such as osteogenesis imperfecta—have been excluded.
The uncertainty arises in that unexplained category where there is a marked discrepancy between the clinical presentation of the child and purported abusive nature of the fracture: where the child appears well cared for by responsible parents and with no circumstantial evidence in the form of bruising or soft tissue swelling that would be expected were he or she the victim of physical assault. This discrepancy is particularly apparent in
James R Le Fanu, general practitioner1, Rosemary Neary2, Denise Bartlett2
1 Mawbey Brough Health Centre, London SW8 2UD, 2 Eaton Foundation, Wisbech, Cambs PE14 8TP
james.lefanu@btinternet.com
Read all Rapid Responses