↓ Skip to main content

The eye in child abuse: Key points on retinal hemorrhages and abusive head trauma

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
The eye in child abuse: Key points on retinal hemorrhages and abusive head trauma
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00247-014-3107-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gil Binenbaum, Brian J. Forbes

Abstract

This review presents an up-to-date overview of ocular injuries resulting from child abuse, with a spotlight on abusive head trauma. Retinal hemorrhage is a principle finding of inflicted head trauma. The specific pattern of hemorrhages holds valuable diagnostic information, which can help to guide multidisciplinary assessments of the likelihood of abuse. Indirect ophthalmoscopy through dilated pupils by an ophthalmologist is necessary for adequate examination and documentation of retinal findings. Initial pediatrician evaluation of the eye and indications for ophthalmological consultation are reviewed. Focus is then placed upon understanding retinal hemorrhage patterns, their diagnostic significance and likely pathophysiological mechanisms. The differential diagnosis of retinal hemorrhage in young children is discussed, highlighting key distinctions among retinal hemorrhage patterns, severity and frequencies, as well as other ocular findings. The most common cause of retinal hemorrhage in an infant is trauma, and most other causes can be identified by considering the hemorrhage pattern, ocular or systemic signs and the results of laboratory and imaging tests, when indicated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 12%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Professor 6 8%
Other 19 25%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,945,440
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#579
of 2,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,752
of 354,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,075 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.