Anogenital Findings in 3569 Pediatric Examinations for Sexual Abuse/Assault.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Accurate interpretation of anogenital examination findings in the context of suspected child and adolescent sexual abuse/assault is essential, because misinterpretation has significant child protection and criminal justice implications. A consensus approach to the interpretation of anogenital examination findings is widely used to support accurate diagnosis; however, a large-scale study using this standardized approach is lacking. The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine the proportion of anogenital examinations for sexual abuse concerns with findings diagnostic of trauma and/or sexual contact; (2) determine whether frequency of diagnostic findings varies according to age, gender, and timing of examination; and (3) characterize diagnostic findings. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retrospective records of children aged 0-18 years evaluated for sexual abuse/assault were reviewed. Case details of 3569 patients were extracted and anogenital examination findings were reinterpreted using a published consensus approach. RESULTS: Anogenital examination findings diagnostic of trauma and/or sexual contact were present in 173 of 3569 patients (4.8%). The prevalence of diagnostic findings was significantly higher in adolescents than in children younger than 12 years of age (13.9%, 114/823 vs 2.2%, 59/2657), in female vs male patients (5.7%, 164/2866 vs 1.5%, 9/614), and in examinations within 72 hours for children younger than 12 years (14.2%, 91/643 vs 4.5%, 45/997). Acute injuries were the most common type of diagnostic finding. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic findings are present in a small proportion of children and adolescents examined for suspected sexual abuse/assault. It is essential that practitioners who interpret examination findings be adequately trained and familiar with the current consensus approach and are aware of case characteristics associated with higher likelihood of findings.

Duke Scholars

Author Sudha Rani Raman Population Health Sciences