Brief Communication
How useful is the presence of petechiae in distinguishing non-accidental from accidental injury?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.09.005Get rights and content

Introduction

Petechiae are non-specific cutaneous lesions occurring in a wide spectrum of disorders (Jaffe, 1994). These lesions have been reported to have corroborative if not diagnostic value in conditions of forensic interest such as infanticide and sudden infant death syndrome (Oehmichen, Gerling, & Meissner, 2000). However, the degree of usefulness of unexplained petechiae as a diagnostic aid in suspected non-accidental injury (NAI) has yet to be established. Distinguishing non-accidental injury from accidental injury can be problematic, and the presence of unexplained petechiae may increase the likelihood that the injury is non-accidental. We have been unable to find any literature specifically addressing unexplained petechiae in non-accidental injury other than that related to suffocation. However, clinical anecdote suggests that petechiae with or without other bruising may indicate an increased likelihood of non-accidental injury. A legal challenge to the clinical opinion of one of the authors (N.S.) provided an additional impetus to contribute to an evidence-base in this under-researched clinical area.

The aim of this study, therefore, was to ascertain the prevalence of petechiae in children with accidental and non-accidental injury and the value of the presence or absence of petechiae as a diagnostic test for non-accidental injury.

Section snippets

Methods

A retrospective group of all 190 children aged less than 17 years examined between November 1998 and October 2000 in a community pediatric referral clinic for children suspected of suffering non-accidental injury and a prospective group of all 263 children aged less than 17 years attending Accident and Emergency (A&E) with minor trauma, defined as ambulatory cases not requiring hospital admission, over a 2-week period in January 2001 were compared for the reported prevalence of petechiae. The

Results

Of 453 children included in the study, 190 children were referred to the community pediatric clinic for suspected non-accidental injury and 263 children attended the Accident and Emergency Department. The characteristics of the children in the two groups are shown in Table 1. Similar proportions of children in the two groups sustained head and neck injuries and limb injuries, although more children referred for possible non-accidental injuries had combined head, neck, and trunk injuries. A

Discussion

In this study, the presence of petechiae was considerably more common among those believed to have had a non-accidental cause for their injuries. The finding of a likelihood ratio for a positive result of 6 implies that the presence of petechiae on examination increases sixfold the likelihood that the injuries were non-accidental. However, the absence of petechiae does not assist in excluding non-accidental injury as the likelihood ratio for a negative result was close to unity.

An alternative

Acknowledgements

We thank the community pediatricians who completed the standard proformas in the non-accidental injury referral clinic and the doctors in A&E who completed the proformas in the prospective cohort of children attending A&E. We also thank Dr Karen McLachlan, Consultant Pediatrician at the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, who classified the 10% sample of proformas.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (9)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (22)

  • Cutaneous manifestations of child abuse and neglect: Part I

    2022, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
    Citation Excerpt :

    The second component “FACES-P” stands for frenulum (Fig 22), auricular area (Fig 23), angle of the jaw (Fig 24), cheek (Fig 25), eyelid (Fig 26), sclera (Fig 27), and patterned bruising.19 Petechial bruising has also been shown to be strongly predictive of abuse.20 The presence of multiple bruises should increase the suspicion of abuse, particularly if they are bilateral, clustered, or involve multiple planes of the body.21-24

  • Bruising: the most common injury in physical child abuse

    2021, Paediatrics and Child Health (United Kingdom)
  • Bruising in Infants and Children: Minor Skin Injuries Can Have Major Implications

    2020, Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    While some orofacial injuries have a high specificity for abuse, at this time literature has not identified specific orofacial injuries that are pathognomonic for abuse.11 Clustered bruising, petechiae with or without bruising, and bruising in multiple different planes of the body have also been associated with physical abuse.12-14 Children who have sustained abusive injury have also been shown to have a higher total number or bruises as compared to accidental injuries.9

  • Impact sites representing potential bruising locations associated with bed falls in children

    2018, Forensic Science International
    Citation Excerpt :

    While bruising can occur in accidental trauma, it is a common early sign of abuse in young children, especially those who are non-ambulatory [4]. Number, location, pattern and appearance of bruises have been shown to differ between abusive and accidental trauma [4–8]. The ability to differentiation between accident and abuse based upon bruising characteristics is critical in clinical and forensic settings, as this “roadmap” is indicative of a child's exposure to impact.

  • Bruises and skin lesions

    2011, Child Abuse and Neglect
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text