Evaluation of pediatric skull fracture imaging techniques

Abstract Radiologic imaging is crucial in the diagnosis of skull fracture, but there is some doubt as to whether different imaging modalities can accurately identify fractures present on a human skull. While studies have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of radiologic imaging at other anatomic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Forensic science international 2012-01, Vol.214 (1), p.167-172
Hauptverfasser: Mulroy, Maura H, Loyd, Andre M, Frush, Donald P, Verla, Terence G, Myers, Barry S, ‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 172
container_issue 1
container_start_page 167
container_title Forensic science international
container_volume 214
creator Mulroy, Maura H
Loyd, Andre M
Frush, Donald P
Verla, Terence G
Myers, Barry S
‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R
description Abstract Radiologic imaging is crucial in the diagnosis of skull fracture, but there is some doubt as to whether different imaging modalities can accurately identify fractures present on a human skull. While studies have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of radiologic imaging at other anatomical locations, there have been no systematic studies comparing various CT techniques, including high resolution imaging with and without 3D reconstructions to conventional radiologic imaging in children, we investigated which imaging modalities: high-resolution CT scan with 3D projections, clinical-resolution CT scans or X-rays, best showed fracture occurrence in a pediatric human cadaver skull by having an expert pediatric radiologist examine radiologic images from fractured skulls. The skulls used were taken from pediatric cadavers ranging in age from 5 months to 16 years. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity for the imaging modalities using dissection findings as the gold standard. We found that high-resolution CT scans with 3D projections and conventional CT provided the most accurate fracture diagnosis (single-fracture sensitivity of 71%) followed by X-rays (single-fracture sensitivity of 63%). Linear fractures outsider the region of the sutures were more identifiable than diastatic fractures, though the incidence of false positives was greater for linear fractures. In the two cases where multiple fractures were present on the same anatomical skull location, the radiologist was less likely to identify the presence of additional fractures than a single fracture. Overall, the high-resolution and clinical-resolution CT scans had the similar accuracy for detecting skull fractures while the use of the X-ray was both less accurate and had a lower specificity.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.050
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_912797221</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0379073811003896</els_id><sourcerecordid>2743697261</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-de19862a292c2a425392b438c997b15d94eb3b64825479ce98d8b094ca74849f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk9v1DAQxS0EokvhK0AEQu0lYfwv9lwqVVVLK1XqAThbjuMUb7PJYieV-u1xtEsrVQJx8uU373neG0I-UKgo0PrLuurGmFwIw1QxoLQCVYGEF2RFtWJlzTR_SVbAFZaguD4gb1JaA4CUrH5NDhjVGoTgK4Ln97af7RTGoRi7YuvbYKcYXJHu5r4vumjdNEdfhI29DcNtMXn3cwi_Zp_ekled7ZN_t38PyY-L8-9nl-X1zders9Pr0knBp7L1FHXNLEPmmBVMcmSN4NohqobKFoVveFMLzaRQ6DzqVjeAwlkltMCOH5Kjne42jovvZDYhOd_3dvDjnAxSplAxRjN5_E8yJwcaBeeY0Y_P0PU4xyHvYTDnCQzrOkOf_gZR4EJrKrnOlNpRLo4pRd-ZbcxpxYcMLZa1WZvHssxSlgFlcll58v1ef242vn2c-9NOBj7vAZuc7XMZgwvpictZSoSFO91xPvdwH3w02c0PLpcZvZtMO4b_-MzJMw3XhyFk2zv_4NPT5iYxA-bbclvLaVEKwDXW_Df4lchr</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1034881538</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of pediatric skull fracture imaging techniques</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Mulroy, Maura H ; Loyd, Andre M ; Frush, Donald P ; Verla, Terence G ; Myers, Barry S ; ‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R</creator><creatorcontrib>Mulroy, Maura H ; Loyd, Andre M ; Frush, Donald P ; Verla, Terence G ; Myers, Barry S ; ‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Radiologic imaging is crucial in the diagnosis of skull fracture, but there is some doubt as to whether different imaging modalities can accurately identify fractures present on a human skull. While studies have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of radiologic imaging at other anatomical locations, there have been no systematic studies comparing various CT techniques, including high resolution imaging with and without 3D reconstructions to conventional radiologic imaging in children, we investigated which imaging modalities: high-resolution CT scan with 3D projections, clinical-resolution CT scans or X-rays, best showed fracture occurrence in a pediatric human cadaver skull by having an expert pediatric radiologist examine radiologic images from fractured skulls. The skulls used were taken from pediatric cadavers ranging in age from 5 months to 16 years. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity for the imaging modalities using dissection findings as the gold standard. We found that high-resolution CT scans with 3D projections and conventional CT provided the most accurate fracture diagnosis (single-fracture sensitivity of 71%) followed by X-rays (single-fracture sensitivity of 63%). Linear fractures outsider the region of the sutures were more identifiable than diastatic fractures, though the incidence of false positives was greater for linear fractures. In the two cases where multiple fractures were present on the same anatomical skull location, the radiologist was less likely to identify the presence of additional fractures than a single fracture. Overall, the high-resolution and clinical-resolution CT scans had the similar accuracy for detecting skull fractures while the use of the X-ray was both less accurate and had a lower specificity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0379-0738</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6283</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.050</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21880443</identifier><identifier>CODEN: FSINDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>3-D technology ; Adolescent ; Biological and medical sciences ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Diagnosis ; Female ; Forensic medicine ; Forensic Pathology ; Forensic sciences ; Fracture ; Fracture mechanics ; Fractures ; General aspects ; Humans ; Imaging ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; Infant ; Injury ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Pathology ; Pediatric ; Pediatrics ; Projection ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Radiologic ; Radiology ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Skull ; Skull Fractures - diagnostic imaging ; Three dimensional ; Tomography ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; X-ray ; X-rays</subject><ispartof>Forensic science international, 2012-01, Vol.214 (1), p.167-172</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Sequoia S.A. Jan 10, 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-de19862a292c2a425392b438c997b15d94eb3b64825479ce98d8b094ca74849f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-de19862a292c2a425392b438c997b15d94eb3b64825479ce98d8b094ca74849f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1034881538?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,3554,27933,27934,46004,64394,64396,64398,72478</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25395903$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21880443$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mulroy, Maura H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loyd, Andre M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frush, Donald P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verla, Terence G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Myers, Barry S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of pediatric skull fracture imaging techniques</title><title>Forensic science international</title><addtitle>Forensic Sci Int</addtitle><description>Abstract Radiologic imaging is crucial in the diagnosis of skull fracture, but there is some doubt as to whether different imaging modalities can accurately identify fractures present on a human skull. While studies have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of radiologic imaging at other anatomical locations, there have been no systematic studies comparing various CT techniques, including high resolution imaging with and without 3D reconstructions to conventional radiologic imaging in children, we investigated which imaging modalities: high-resolution CT scan with 3D projections, clinical-resolution CT scans or X-rays, best showed fracture occurrence in a pediatric human cadaver skull by having an expert pediatric radiologist examine radiologic images from fractured skulls. The skulls used were taken from pediatric cadavers ranging in age from 5 months to 16 years. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity for the imaging modalities using dissection findings as the gold standard. We found that high-resolution CT scans with 3D projections and conventional CT provided the most accurate fracture diagnosis (single-fracture sensitivity of 71%) followed by X-rays (single-fracture sensitivity of 63%). Linear fractures outsider the region of the sutures were more identifiable than diastatic fractures, though the incidence of false positives was greater for linear fractures. In the two cases where multiple fractures were present on the same anatomical skull location, the radiologist was less likely to identify the presence of additional fractures than a single fracture. Overall, the high-resolution and clinical-resolution CT scans had the similar accuracy for detecting skull fractures while the use of the X-ray was both less accurate and had a lower specificity.</description><subject>3-D technology</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Forensic medicine</subject><subject>Forensic Pathology</subject><subject>Forensic sciences</subject><subject>Fracture</subject><subject>Fracture mechanics</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Injury</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Pediatric</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Projection</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Radiologic</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Skull</subject><subject>Skull Fractures - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Three dimensional</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>X-ray</subject><subject>X-rays</subject><issn>0379-0738</issn><issn>1872-6283</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk9v1DAQxS0EokvhK0AEQu0lYfwv9lwqVVVLK1XqAThbjuMUb7PJYieV-u1xtEsrVQJx8uU373neG0I-UKgo0PrLuurGmFwIw1QxoLQCVYGEF2RFtWJlzTR_SVbAFZaguD4gb1JaA4CUrH5NDhjVGoTgK4Ln97af7RTGoRi7YuvbYKcYXJHu5r4vumjdNEdfhI29DcNtMXn3cwi_Zp_ekled7ZN_t38PyY-L8-9nl-X1zders9Pr0knBp7L1FHXNLEPmmBVMcmSN4NohqobKFoVveFMLzaRQ6DzqVjeAwlkltMCOH5Kjne42jovvZDYhOd_3dvDjnAxSplAxRjN5_E8yJwcaBeeY0Y_P0PU4xyHvYTDnCQzrOkOf_gZR4EJrKrnOlNpRLo4pRd-ZbcxpxYcMLZa1WZvHssxSlgFlcll58v1ef242vn2c-9NOBj7vAZuc7XMZgwvpictZSoSFO91xPvdwH3w02c0PLpcZvZtMO4b_-MzJMw3XhyFk2zv_4NPT5iYxA-bbclvLaVEKwDXW_Df4lchr</recordid><startdate>20120110</startdate><enddate>20120110</enddate><creator>Mulroy, Maura H</creator><creator>Loyd, Andre M</creator><creator>Frush, Donald P</creator><creator>Verla, Terence G</creator><creator>Myers, Barry S</creator><creator>‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><general>Elsevier Sequoia S.A</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120110</creationdate><title>Evaluation of pediatric skull fracture imaging techniques</title><author>Mulroy, Maura H ; Loyd, Andre M ; Frush, Donald P ; Verla, Terence G ; Myers, Barry S ; ‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-de19862a292c2a425392b438c997b15d94eb3b64825479ce98d8b094ca74849f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>3-D technology</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Forensic medicine</topic><topic>Forensic Pathology</topic><topic>Forensic sciences</topic><topic>Fracture</topic><topic>Fracture mechanics</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Injury</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Pediatric</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Projection</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Radiologic</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Skull</topic><topic>Skull Fractures - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Three dimensional</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>X-ray</topic><topic>X-rays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mulroy, Maura H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loyd, Andre M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frush, Donald P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verla, Terence G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Myers, Barry S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Forensic science international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mulroy, Maura H</au><au>Loyd, Andre M</au><au>Frush, Donald P</au><au>Verla, Terence G</au><au>Myers, Barry S</au><au>‘Dale’ Bass, Cameron R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of pediatric skull fracture imaging techniques</atitle><jtitle>Forensic science international</jtitle><addtitle>Forensic Sci Int</addtitle><date>2012-01-10</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>214</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>167</spage><epage>172</epage><pages>167-172</pages><issn>0379-0738</issn><eissn>1872-6283</eissn><coden>FSINDR</coden><abstract>Abstract Radiologic imaging is crucial in the diagnosis of skull fracture, but there is some doubt as to whether different imaging modalities can accurately identify fractures present on a human skull. While studies have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of radiologic imaging at other anatomical locations, there have been no systematic studies comparing various CT techniques, including high resolution imaging with and without 3D reconstructions to conventional radiologic imaging in children, we investigated which imaging modalities: high-resolution CT scan with 3D projections, clinical-resolution CT scans or X-rays, best showed fracture occurrence in a pediatric human cadaver skull by having an expert pediatric radiologist examine radiologic images from fractured skulls. The skulls used were taken from pediatric cadavers ranging in age from 5 months to 16 years. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity for the imaging modalities using dissection findings as the gold standard. We found that high-resolution CT scans with 3D projections and conventional CT provided the most accurate fracture diagnosis (single-fracture sensitivity of 71%) followed by X-rays (single-fracture sensitivity of 63%). Linear fractures outsider the region of the sutures were more identifiable than diastatic fractures, though the incidence of false positives was greater for linear fractures. In the two cases where multiple fractures were present on the same anatomical skull location, the radiologist was less likely to identify the presence of additional fractures than a single fracture. Overall, the high-resolution and clinical-resolution CT scans had the similar accuracy for detecting skull fractures while the use of the X-ray was both less accurate and had a lower specificity.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>21880443</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.050</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0379-0738
ispartof Forensic science international, 2012-01, Vol.214 (1), p.167-172
issn 0379-0738
1872-6283
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_912797221
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
subjects 3-D technology
Adolescent
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Child, Preschool
Diagnosis
Female
Forensic medicine
Forensic Pathology
Forensic sciences
Fracture
Fracture mechanics
Fractures
General aspects
Humans
Imaging
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Infant
Injury
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Male
Medical sciences
Pathology
Pediatric
Pediatrics
Projection
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Radiologic
Radiology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Skull
Skull Fractures - diagnostic imaging
Three dimensional
Tomography
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
X-ray
X-rays
title Evaluation of pediatric skull fracture imaging techniques
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-03T17%3A07%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20pediatric%20skull%20fracture%20imaging%20techniques&rft.jtitle=Forensic%20science%20international&rft.au=Mulroy,%20Maura%20H&rft.date=2012-01-10&rft.volume=214&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=167&rft.epage=172&rft.pages=167-172&rft.issn=0379-0738&rft.eissn=1872-6283&rft.coden=FSINDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.050&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2743697261%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1034881538&rft_id=info:pmid/21880443&rft_els_id=S0379073811003896&rfr_iscdi=true