4.7 Article

Vitamin D Status in Abused and Nonabused Children Younger Than 2 Years Old With Fractures

Journal

PEDIATRICS
Volume 127, Issue 5, Pages 835-841

Publisher

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-0533

Keywords

vitamin D deficiency; fractures; child abuse

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To examine vitamin D levels in children with (1) suspected abusive and accidental fractures, (2) single and multiple fractures, and (3) fracture types highly associated with inflicted trauma. DESIGN AND METHODS: A study of children younger than 2 years of age with fractures admitted to a large children's hospital was performed. Bivariate analysis and test for trend were performed to test for the association of vitamin D status and biochemical markers of bone health with the primary outcomes of fracture etiology, number, and type. RESULTS: Of 118 subjects in the study, 8% had deficient vitamin D levels (<20 ng/mL; <50 nmol/L), 31% were insufficient (>= 20 < 30 ng/mL; >= 50 < 78 nmol/L), and 61% were sufficient (>= 30 ng/mL; >= 78 nmol/L). Lower vitamin D levels were associated with higher incidences of hypocalcemia (P = .002) and elevated alkaline phosphatase (P = .05) but not hypophosphatemia (P = .30). The majority of children sustained accidental fractures (60%); 31% were nonaccidental and 9% were indeterminate. There was no association between vitamin D levels and any of the following outcomes: child abuse diagnosis (P = .32), multiple fractures (P = .24), rib fractures (P = .16), or metaphyseal fractures (P = .49). CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D insufficiency was common in young children with fractures but was not more common than in previously studied healthy children. Vitamin D insufficiency was not associated with multiple fractures or diagnosis of child abuse. Nonaccidental trauma remains the most common cause of multiple fractures in young children. Pediatrics 2011;127:835-841

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available