Child Sexual Abuse

No Results

No Results


Sexual activities imposed on children represent an abuse of the caregiver’s power over the child. The sequence of activities often progresses from noncontact to contact over a period of time during which the child’s trust in the caregiver is misused and betrayed.

Pediatricians are often in trusted relationships with patients and families and are in an ideal position to offer essential support to the child and family. Thus, pediatricians need to be knowledgeable about available community resources, such as consultants and referral centers for the evaluation and treatment of sexual maltreatment.

In incidents of CSA, the interview with the child is typically the most valuable component of the medical evaluation; the elicited history is frequently the only diagnostic information that is uncovered.

Elements of the history include the following:

General approach that is developmentally sensitive (ie, age-appropriate)

Initial introduction with efforts to build up trust (including both child and caregiver)

Caregiver interview

Child interview, focusing on asking simply worded, open-ended, nonleading questions

Wrap-up and preparation for the physical examination

The general approach to the physical examination follows the standard head-to-toe approach. Elements of the examination include the following:

Determination of structures of interest – Mons pubis, labia majora and minora, clitoris, urethral meatus, hymen, posterior fourchette, and fossa navicularis

Choice of positioning for optimal exposure of prepubertal genital structures – Frog-leg supine position, knee-chest position, or left lateral decubitus position

Calming the child during examination

General observation and inspection of the anogenital area, looking for signs of injury or infection and noting the child’s emotional status

Visualization of the more recessed genital structures, using handheld magnification or colposcopy as necessary

Collection of specimens for sexually transmitted disease (STD) screening and forensic evidence collection

Evaluation of any observable findings – Although most individuals who have been sexually abused present with essentially normal examination findings, observable findings may include (1) those attributable to acute injury or (2) chronic findings that may be residual effects following repeated episodes of genital contact

The Muram diagnostic categorization system classifies prepubertal genital examination findings as follows:

Category I – Genitalia with no observable abnormalities

Category II – Nonspecific findings that are minimally suggestive of sexual abuse but also may be caused by other etiologies

Category III – Strongly suggestive findings that have a high likelihood of being caused by sexual abuse

Category IV – Definitive findings that have no possible cause other than sexual contact (eg, seminal products in a prepubertal female child’s vagina, the presence of a nonvertically transmitted gonorrhea or syphilis infection)

Another classification system, developed by Adams et al on the basis of the Muram approach combined with information from other components of the sexual abuse assessment, includes the following 8 categories of findings [1, 2, 3] :

Findings documented in newborns or commonly seen in nonabused children (ie, normal variants)

Findings commonly caused by other medical conditions

Findings diagnostic of trauma and/or sexual contact

Residual or healing injuries

Injuries of blunt force penetrating trauma

Infection that confirms mucosal contact with infected bodily secretions (ie, indicating that contact was most likely sexual)

Findings diagnostic of sexual contact (ie, pregnancy or sperm directly taken from a child’s body)

See Presentation for more detail.

Cultures have traditionally been the criterion standard for cases of possible sexual abuse and are valuable from a forensic evidence standpoint.  Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) has been used widely in the sexually active adolescent and adult populations secondary to its higher sensitivity, noninvasive sample collections, and its utility in testing for both Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis with one sample, and its lower cost compared to culture. [4]  NAATs can be used as an alternative to culture with vaginal specimens or urine from girls whereas culture remains the preferred method for urethral specimens or urine from boys and for extra-genital specimens for all children. [5]

Gram stain of vaginal or anal discharge

Genital, anal, and pharyngeal culture for gonorrhea

Genital and anal culture for chlamydia

See above regarding NAAT (Chlamydia, N. gonorrhea)

Serology for syphilis

Culture by using Diamond’s or InPouch TV media (most specific method of diagnosing Trichomonas vaginalis) [6]   

Wet prep of vaginal discharge for Trichomonas vaginalis, other bacteria, candida, etc.

Culture of lesions for herpes virus

Serology for HIV (based on suspected risk)

Other tests that may be considered include the following:

Collection of forensic evidence via rape kit

Urine toxicology screen (if the abuse or assault was substance-facilitated)

See Workup for more detail.

Medical treatment of CSA is guided by any conditions uncovered. Recommendations include the following:

Treat STDs with appropriate medications

In postmenarchal children, consider the possibility of pregnancy

Recognize the overriding need for emotional support and attention

When sexual abuse is seriously suspected or has been diagnosed, ensure that it is reported to the appropriate child protective services (CPS) agency

When sexual abuse is being considered, consider reporting it, depending on the perceived risk to the child

Keep well-documented medical records; legal proceedings may occur over long periods, and the health care provider cannot rely solely on memory

Mental health consultation is warranted to evaluate and treat acute stress reaction and, later, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

See Treatment and Medication for more detail.

Child sexual abuse (CSA) refers to the use of children in sexual activities when, because of their immaturity and developmental level, they cannot understand or give informed consent. A wide range of activities is included in sexual abuse, including contact and noncontact activities. Contact activities included are sexualized kissing, fondling, masturbation, and digital and/or object penetration of the vagina and/or anus, as well as oral-genital, genital-genital, and anal-genital contact. Noncontact activities include exhibitionism, inappropriate observation of child (eg, while the child is dressing, using the toilet, bathing), the production or viewing of pornography, or involvement of children in prostitution.

The sexual activities are imposed on the child and represent an abuse of the caregiver’s power over the child. The sequence of activities often progresses from noncontact to contact over a period of time during which the child’s trust in the caregiver is misused and betrayed. The image below depicts suture in place at 6-o’clock position to stop bleeding from injury.

Since the mid 1970s, health care professionals have paid serious attention to sexual abuse of children. Despite the recognition of the clinical importance of sexual abuse of children, some pediatricians may not feel adequately prepared to perform medical evaluations. However, pediatricians are often in trusted relationships with patients and families and are in an ideal position to offer essential support to the child and family. Thus, pediatricians need to be knowledgeable about available community resources, such as consultants and referral centers for the evaluation and treatment of sexual maltreatment. One study evaluated residents’ and practicing physicians’ medical knowledge of child abuse and maltreatment. Using a 30-question survey, the results found an overall average score of 63.3%; these findings highlight the need for increased education in child maltreatment. [7]

Several paradigms have been proposed to help professionals understand the events that surround the sexual maltreatment of children.

See the list below:

Motivation of perpetrator: The perpetrator is willing to act on impulses associated with sexual arousal related to children.

Overcoming internal inhibitions: The perpetrator ignores internal barriers against sexually abusing children.

Overcoming external inhibitions: The perpetrator is able to bypass the typical barriers in the caregiving environment that normally serve to impede the sexual misuse of children.

Overcoming child resistance: The perpetrator is able to manipulate the child to the point of involving the child in the sexual activity. Manipulation often involves either implicit or explicit coercion to ensure that the child keeps the inappropriate activities a secret. [8]

See the list below:

Engagement: The perpetrator begins relating to the child during nonsexual activities to gain the child’s trust and confidence.

Sexual interaction: The perpetrator introduces sexual activities into the relationship with the child; the perpetrator often begins with noncontact types of activities and, over time, progresses to more invasive forms of contact activities.

Secrecy: The perpetrator attempts to maintain access to the child and to avoid disclosure of the abuse by coercing the child to keep the activities hidden. Coercion to keep the secret can be explicit (eg, threatening the child or the child’s family’s safety) or it can be implicit (eg, manipulation of the child’s trust to create a fear of losing the “friendship” or “attention” should the truth become known to others).

Disclosure: Sexual abuse can become known to others either accidentally, when a symptom from the maltreatment or a third party witnessing the abuse leads to an evaluation, or can be purposeful, as when the child reveals the abuse that is taking place and seeks help.

Suppression: The tumult that occurs after the disclosure prompts the people in the child’s caregiving environment to think that they are unable to support the child; thus, these people exert pressure on the child to recant what the child has told in order to go back to the perceived “stable” situation that existed prior to the disclosure.

Sexual abuse typically presents as a pattern of maltreatment that occurs over time. Children or their families usually know the perpetrators, because they often are either relatives or acquaintances. [9]

See the list below:

Traumatic sexualization: The child’s sexual feelings and attitudes are shaped in a developmentally inappropriate and interpersonally dysfunctional manner. The child learns that sexual behavior may lead to rewards, attention, or privileges. Traumatic sexualization may also occur when the child’s sexual anatomy is given distorted importance and meaning.

Betrayal: The child learns that a trusted individual has caused him or her harm, misrepresented moral standards, or failed to protect him or her properly.

Powerlessness: This is a process of disempowerment in which the child’s sense of self-efficacy and will are consistently thwarted by the perpetrator’s coercion and manipulation. The child manifests symptoms of fear, anxiety, and impaired coping.

Stigmatization: The child’s self-image incorporates negative connotations and is associated with words such as bad, awful, shameful, and guilty. This stigmatization is consistent with the “damaged goods” mentality originally described by Sgroi et al (1982), in which the child feels deviant and not as whole as he or she felt prior to the abuse. [9, 10]

The evaluation for suspected sexual abuse may be complicated and is often not straightforward. Frequently, nonspecific behavioral changes are the presenting symptoms prompting an evaluation and leading the health care provider to consider sexual abuse as a possible diagnosis. These nonspecific behaviors are not diagnostic of sexual maltreatment and may be observed in other situations where the child manifests stress as well. Nonspecific behavior changes that warrant consideration of the possibility of sexual abuse may include (1) sexualized behaviors, (2) phobias, (3) sleep disturbances, (4) changes in appetite, (5) change in or poor school performance, (6) regression to an earlier developmental level, (7) running away, (8) truancy, (9) aggressiveness and acting out behaviors, and/or (10) social withdrawal, sadness, or symptoms of depression.

One study identified a screening tool to identify which prepubertal children (≤12 y) should receive an initial evaluation for alleged sexual assault in a nonemergent setting, as opposed to one in the emergency department. [11] A positive screen, which warranted an immediate evaluation, was considered if an affirmative response was received to any of the following questions:

Did the incident occur in the past 72 hours, and was there oral or genital to genital/anal contact?

Was genital or rectal pain, bleeding, discharge, or injury present?

Was there concern for the child’s safety?

Was an unrelated emergency medical condition present?

This screening tool showed sensitivity of 100% and may help determine which children do not require evaluation in an emergency department for alleged sexual assault. [11]

When physical signs and symptoms are present, the best procedure is to generate an extensive differential diagnosis, progress through a careful workup to exclude the diagnostic options, and, eventually, arrive at a diagnosis. Numerous medical conditions can mimic the possible findings in persons who have been sexually abused; these may be considered as primarily being in the category II nonspecific findings group as proposed in the Clinical section. An organized approach to the diagnostic process is most useful.

For the purposes of this discussion, the differential diagnosis for each of the following 4 genital findings known to be associated with child sexual abuse is discussed.

Identification of the source for the blood is necessary to exclude serious injury. Blood-tinged vaginal or urethral discharge initially may be confused with frank bleeding. Differential diagnoses are as follows:

Local factors, such as injury (either accidental or nonaccidental) and/or foreign body irritation (eg, small toy parts, clumped toilet tissue [see the images below])

Dermatologic conditions, such as lichen sclerosis and/or dermatitis (eg, atopic, contact, seborrhea)

Infections, including sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), fungal infections, and/or nonspecific vulvovaginitis

Endocrinologic causes, such as estrogen withdrawal as observed in the neonate and/or precocious puberty

Neoplastic tissue, such as sarcoma botryoides

Structural abnormalities, such as vulvar hemangioma

Normal physiologic clear-white mucoid discharge (ie, leukorrhea) should be differentiated from pathologic discharges. Differential diagnoses are as follows:

Local irritation from abusive sexual contact, foreign body, chemical irritants, and restrictive clothing

Infections, including STDs, fungal infections, nonspecific vulvovaginitis, group A streptococci, Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, and Mycoplasma species

Physiologic leukorrhea

Structural abnormality, such as ectopic ureter, fistula, and draining pelvic abscess

Bruising in the anogenital area most often represents some type of anogenital trauma, either accidental or abusive in origin. Differential diagnoses are as follows:

Local injury, including straddle injury, accidental impaling injury, accidental blunt trauma, and abusive injury

Dermatologic conditions, such as mongolian spots, lichen sclerosis, and vascular nevi

Systemic manifestations of other disorders, such as bleeding diathesis and vasculitis

This finding typically represents the result of inflammation. Differential diagnoses are as follows:

Local irritation from sexual abuse, poor hygiene, restrictive clothing, and chemicals

Anatomic/structural factors such as perianal fissuring and rectal prolapse

Dermatologic conditions, such as lichen sclerosus, psoriasis, and dermatitis (atopic, contact, seborrhea)

Infections, such as STDs, nonspecific vulvovaginitis, pinworm, scabies, fungal infections with Candida species, and perianal cellulitis or warts

Systemic manifestations of other disorders, such as Crohn disease, Kawasaki syndrome, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome


Professionals conservatively use child sexual abuse prevalence estimates of 20% in women and 5-10% in men. A classic prevalence study of New England male and female college students done by Finkelhor (1984), which used a definition that included both contact and noncontact abuse with older perpetrators and children younger than 17 years, revealed that 19.2% of female students (1 in 5 women) and 9% of male students (1 in 10 men) reported sexual misuse during their childhoods. [12] These figures are believed to be conservative estimates; other studies using different methodologies support using these figures as reasonable prevalence estimates. Analysis by various experts of 16 prevalence studies of nonclinical North American samples supports setting the upper end of prevalence figures at about 17% for women and 8% for men.

According to the US federal government’s official report, Child Maltreatment 2014, approximately 702,000 unique children were determined to be victims of child abuse; the overall child maltreatment rate was 9.4 cases per 1000 children. [13] Of these, about 8.3%, or approximately 58,000, represented cases of sexual abuse that were substantiated by child protective services (CPS). Overall, in federal fiscal year 2014 (October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014), the 702,000 substantiated cases emerged from approximately 3.6 million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect, involving about 6.6 million children. In addition to the 8.3% of substantiated cases of sexual abuse, an additional 17% were substantiated for physical abuse and 75% were substantiated for child neglect.

The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) was mandated by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36) and aimed to estimate the current national incidence, severity, and demographic distribution of child abuse and neglect in the United States based on standardized research definitions. [14] The NIS-4 collected data from a nationally representative sample of 122 counties in 2 phases (2005 and 2006). The NIS-4 is the single most comprehensive source of information about the current incidence of child abuse and neglect in the United States and is based on a nationally representative sample.

The NIS-4 used 2 sets of standardized definitions of maltreatment. Children identified under the “Harm Standard” were considered to be maltreated only if they had already experienced demonstrable harm or injury from the abuse or neglect. The second set (the “Endangerment Standard”) included those children identified under the Harm Standard as well as those who experienced abuse or neglect that put them at risk of harm.

Compared with the NIS-3 (1993), [15] the NIS-4 (2005/2006) reflected a 26% decline in the rate of overall Harm Standard maltreatment, as the incidence rate fell from 23.1 cases to 17.1 cases per 1000 children in the population. The overall incidence of children who experienced maltreatment, under the Endangerment Standard, displayed no statistical change since the NIS-3. While significant decreases in the incidence of overall abuse and all specific categories of abuse were noted, a significant increase in the incidence of emotional neglect was observed.

The NIS-4 reported an estimated sexual abuse incidence rate of 1.8 cases per 1000 (or a total of 135,300); this represented 24% of the total number of children known to have been abused. The NIS-4 used a definition that subsumed a range of behaviors, including intrusion, child’s prostitution or involvement in pornography, genital molestation, exposure or voyeurism, providing sexually explicit materials, failure to supervise the child’s voluntary sexual activities, attempted or threatened sexual abuse with physical contact, and unspecified sexual abuse.

The 2005/2006 NIS-4 incidence figure of 1.8 cases per 1000 children represents a statistically significant decrease (44%) in the rate of sexual abuse from the 1993 NIS-3, from 3.2 children per 1000 in 1993 to 1.8 children per 1000 in 2005-2006. The incidence of Harm Standard physical abuse and emotional abuse also decreased since the NIS-3, but those decreases did not match the sexual abuse decrease, either in size or in statistical strength. The number of children who experienced physical abuse decreased by 15%, whereas the number who suffered emotional abuse decreased by 27%. The decreases in incidence rates were 23% for physical abuse (from 5.7 cases to 4.4 cases per 1000 children) and 33% for emotional abuse (from 3.0 cases to 2.0 cases per 1000 children).

The NIS-4 Harm Standard estimates for physical, sexual, and emotional abuse do not differ statistically from the NIS-2 Harm Standard (1986) estimates for the component categories of abuse. Thus, the decreases since 1993 in the categories of Harm Standard abuse have returned their incidence rates to levels that are statistically equivalent to what they were at the time of the NIS-2 in 1986.

Finkelhor, Saito, and Jones (2015) at the Crimes Against Children Research Center have been tracking trends in child maltreatment statistics collected by the US government and have found a national decline in the incidence of both physical and sexual abuse that began in the middle of the 1990s and continued through 2013. [16]

Child neglect saw a 13% decline in 2013, which had seen a rise in 2006. Sexual abuse substantiations have seen a 64% downward trend from the peak annual incidence observed in 1992. There was a slight rise in physical abuse in 2003, but by 2013 there was an overall decline of 55%.

Finkelhor and Jones, over the years, have explored potential reasons for the decline in child sexual abuse and have focused on factors that may be impacting the actual incidence, as well as factors that may be influencing the reporting and investigation of reported cases, which may then downstream the number of substantiated cases. The possibility for the reported decline in child sexual abuse may result from change in attitudes, policies, and standards for reporting and investigating. These changes might account for some of the decline but they would not represent the entire picture. They indicate the need for a more balanced and questioning approach since decreasing trends in child sexual abuse are less clear (see image below). [17]

Optimistically, prevention efforts, incarceration, and treatment of perpetrators (along with other societal factors) may actually be decreasing the number of children who are harmed by sexual abuse. On the other hand, more pessimistically, fears of lawsuits and retribution, higher thresholds set for investigation and substantiation, and changes in policies and procedures may be changing the numbers but not impacting the actual amount of children under abuse.

No consensus has been reached about what may be causing the steady decline; Finkelhor and Jones draw attention to the idea that factors such as increasing economic prosperity, increasing numbers of agents of social intervention, and increasing availability of highly effective psychiatric medications may very well be leading to a decline in incidence with a resultant decline in substantiations.

Numerous psychological and medical consequences have been described as associated with sexual abuse. Psychological disorders are reported as having an increased incidence in those who have been abused sexually and include depression, eating disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, somatization, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociative disorders, psychosexual dysfunction in adulthood, and numerous interpersonal problems, including difficulties with issues of control, anger, shame, trust, dependency, and vulnerability.

PTSD and its relationship to sexual abuse have received considerable professional attention. The diagnosis of PTSD in the context of sexual abuse requires the occurrence of maltreatment and (1) frequent reexperiences of the event via intrusive thoughts and/or nightmares; (2) avoidance behavior and a sense of numbness toward common events; and (3) increased arousal symptoms, such as jumpiness, sleep disturbance, and/or poor concentration. Note that no universal short-term or long-term impact of sexual abuse has been identified, and the presence or absence of various symptoms or conditions does not indicate nor disprove the occurrence of sexual abuse.

Medical sequelae of sexual abuse include numerous medical conditions, including functional GI disorders (eg, irritable bowel syndrome, dyspepsia, chronic abdominal pain), gynecologic disorders (eg, chronic pelvic pain, genital or anal tears), and various forms of somatization involving neurologic conditions and pain syndromes. Additionally, children may contract STDs via sexual abuse, and postpubertal females may become pregnant.

In groundbreaking work, Felitti et al have explored the connection of exposure to childhood abuse and household dysfunction to subsequent health risks and the development of illness in adulthood in a series of studies referred to as the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) studie s. [18] Of 13,494 adults who completed a standard medical evaluation in 1995 and 1996, 9,508 completed a survey questionnaire that asked about their own childhood abuse and exposure to household dysfunction; the investigators then made correlations to risk factors and disease conditions.

In order to assess exposure to child abuse and neglect, the ACE questionnaire asked about categories of child maltreatment, specifically psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. When asking about sexual abuse, the questionnaire asked the patients if an adult or person at least 5 years older then had ever (1) touched or fondled them in a sexual way; (2) made them touch the adults or older person’s body in a sexual way; (3) attempted oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with them; or (4) actually had oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with them. In order to assess exposure to household dysfunction the ACE questionnaire asked questions by category of dysfunction, such as having a household member who had problems with substance abuse (eg, problem drinker, drug user), mental illness (eg, psychiatric problem), or criminal behavior (eg, incarceration) and having a mother who was treated violently.

In addition to the questionnaire information, the standardized medical examination of the adult assess risk factors and actual disease conditions. The risk factors included smoking, severe obesity, physical inactivity, depressed mood, suicide attempts, alcoholism, any drug abuse, a high lifetime number of sexual partners, and a history of STDs. The disease conditions included ischemic heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, diabetes, hepatitis, and skeletal fractures. Once all of the data were collected and analyzed, Felitti et al reported that the most prevalent ACE was substance abuse (25.6%), the least prevalent ACE was criminal behavior (3.4%), and the prevalence of sexual abuse was 22%. In total, 52% of the respondents to the questionnaire had one or more exposure, and 6.2% of respondents had 4 or more exposures. The following were findings in respondents who experienced 4 or more ACEs compared with those who had none:

See the list below:

Risk of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and suicide attempt increased 4-12 fold

Rates of smoking, poor self-rated health, and high number of sexual partners and STDs increased 2-4 fold

Physical inactivity and severe obesity increased 1.4-1.6 fold

The major finding of the ACE studies was a graded relationship between the number of exposures to maltreatment and household dysfunction during childhood to the presence in later life of multiple risk factors and several disease conditions associated with death in adulthood. The image below graphically depicts the hypothesized connection between ACEs and later risk-taking behaviors and the development of life-threatening conditions.

White and black children differed significantly in their rates of experiencing overall maltreatment during the 2005-2006 NIS-4 study year. An estimated 12.6 per 1000 white children experienced maltreatment, compared with 24.0 per 1000 black children. The incidence rate for black children was nearly 2 times the rate for white children. The rate for black children was also significantly higher than that for Latino children (14.2 per 1000), with black children 1.7 times more likely to experience maltreatment than Latino children. An estimated 2.6 per 1000 black children were sexually abused, which is nearly 2 times the rate of 1.4 per 1000 white children. The difference between black and white children in their rates of sexual abuse is statistically marginal.

Changes in the incidence rate of abuse were significantly related to race/ethnicity. There was a significant change in overall abuse since the NIS-3 related to the child’s race and ethnicity. The differential decreases were 43% for white children, 27% for Latino children, and 17% for black children.

Sex-related differences are noted in the reported incidence of sexual abuse. In the NIS-4, a statistically significant difference was noted, with girls experiencing sexual abuse at more than 5 times the rate of boys (3.0 per 1000 girls compared with 0.6 per 1000 boys). The Child Maltreatment 2014 report does not separately report the number of sexual abuse cases by sex, however, it does report that the victimization rates for younger boys (13</ref> Douglas and Finkelhor have conducted extensive studies on child sexual abuse incidence rate trends and conclude that the overwhelming majority of rigorous studies report a higher incidence of sexual abuse among girls, with females typically representing 78-89% of cases. [16]

Age distribution for child sexual abuse was not reported in a detailed manner in the NIS-4. The Child Maltreatment 2014 report shows that the youngest children are the most vulnerable to all types of maltreatment. In FFY 2014, 27.4% of victims of all types of maltreatment were younger than 3 years of age. Victimization of all types of abuse for children younger than 1 year was 24.4% per 1,000 children in the population of the same age. [13]  

Adams JA. Evolution of a classification scale: medical evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Child Maltreat. 2001 Feb. 6(1):31-6. [Medline].

Adams JA, Kaplan RA, Starling SP, Mehta NH, Finkel MA, Botash AS. Guidelines for medical care of children who may have been sexually abused. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2007 Jun. 20(3):163-72. [Medline].

Adams JA, Kellogg ND, Farst KJ, Harper NS, Palusci VJ, Frasier LD, et al. Updated Guidelines for the Medical Assessment and Care of Children Who May Have Been Sexually Abused. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2016 Apr. 29 (2):81-7. [Medline].

Black CM, Driebe EM, Howard LA, Fajman NN, Sawyer MK, Girardet RG, et al. Multicenter study of nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in children being evaluated for sexual abuse. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 Jul. 28 (7):608-13. [Medline].

Workowski, KA, Berman S., et al. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at December 10, 2010; Accessed: May 25, 3016.

Gallion HR, Dupree LJ, Scott TA, Arnold DH. Diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis in female children and adolescents evaluated for possible sexual abuse: a comparison of the InPouch TV culture method and wet mount microscopy. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2009 Oct. 22 (5):300-5. [Medline].

Menoch M, Zimmerman S, Garcia-Filion P, Bulloch B. Child abuse education: an objective evaluation of resident and attending physician knowledge. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Oct. 27(10):937-40. [Medline].

Finkelhor D, Hotaling GT. Sexual abuse in the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect: an appraisal. Child Abuse Negl. 1984. 8(1):23-32. [Medline].

Sgroi SM, Blick LC, Porter FS. A conceptual framework for child sexual abuse. Sgroi SM, ed. Handbook of Clinical Intervention in Child Sexual Abuse. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1982. 9-37.

Finkelhor D, Browne A. The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: a conceptualization. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1985 Oct. 55(4):530-41. [Medline].

Floyed RL, Hirsh DA, Greenbaum VJ, Simon HK. Development of a screening tool for pediatric sexual assault may reduce emergency-department visits. Pediatrics. 2011 Aug. 128(2):221-6. [Medline].

Adams JA. Guidelines for medical care of children evaluated for suspected sexual abuse: an update for 2008. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct. 20(5):435-41. [Medline].

Child Maltreatment 2014. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children’s Bureau U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on... Available at

Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4). US Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. Available at

Sedlak AJ, Broadhurst DD. Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. Final Report NIS-3. US Department of Health and Human Services. 1996.

Finkelhor D, Jones LM, Shattuck A. Updated Trends in Child Maltreatment, 2009. Crimes Against Children Research Center. Crimes Against Children Research Center. Available at Accessed: December 20, 2011.

Jones, L and Finkelhor, D. The Decline in Sexual Abuse Cases. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Available at . 2001; Accessed: May 25, 2016.

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May. 14(4):245-58. [Medline].

Heger A, Ticson L, Velasquez O, Bernier R. Children referred for possible sexual abuse: medical findings in 2384 children. Child Abuse Negl. 2002 Jun. 26(6-7):645-59. [Medline].

Jenny C, Crawford-Jakubiak JE, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, American Academy of Pediatrics. The evaluation of children in the primary care setting when sexual abuse is suspected. Pediatrics. 2013 Aug. 132 (2):e558-67. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Christian CW, Lavelle JM, De Jong AR, et al. Forensic evidence findings in prepubertal victims of sexual assault. Pediatrics. 2000 Jul. 106(1 Pt 1):100-4. [Medline].

Girardet R, Bolton K, Lahoti S, et al. Collection of forensic evidence from pediatric victims of sexual assault. Pediatrics. 2011 Aug. 128(2):233-8. [Medline].

Thackeray JD, Hornor G, Benzinger EA, Scribano PV. Forensic evidence collection and DNA identification in acute child sexual assault. Pediatrics. 2011 Aug. 128(2):227-32. [Medline].

Paolucci EO, Genuis ML, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of child sexual abuse. J Psychol. 2001 Jan. 135(1):17-36. [Medline].

Janeczko L. A Single Question to Sexually Abused Children Predicts Their Trauma Symptoms. Medscape Medical news. Available at Accessed: April 14, 2014.

Melville JD, Kellogg ND, Perez N, Lukefahr JL. Assessment for self-blame and trauma symptoms during the medical evaluation of suspected sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 2014 Mar 10. [Medline].

Laidman J. New guidelines for evaluating suspected child sexual abuse. July 31, 2013; Accessed August 4, 2013. Available at: . Medscape Medical News. Available at Accessed: August 7, 2013.

Jenny C, Crawford-Jakubiak JE. The evaluation of children in the primary care setting when sexual abuse is suspected. Pediatrics. 2013 Aug. 132(2):e558-67. [Medline].

Paradise JE, Rostain AL, Nathanson M. Substantiation of sexual abuse charges when parents dispute custody or visitation. Pediatrics. 1988 Jun. 81(6):835-9. [Medline].

Adams JA. Medical evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2004 Jun. 17(3):191-7. [Medline].

Adams JA, Harper K, Knudson S. A proposed system for the classification of anogenital findings in children with suspected sexual abuse. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 1992. 5:73-5.

Adams JA, Harper K, Knudson S, Revilla J. Examination findings in legally confirmed child sexual abuse: it’s normal to be normal. Pediatrics. 1994 Sep. 94(3):310-7. [Medline].

Atabaki S, Paradise JE. The medical evaluation of the sexually abused child: lessons from a decade of research. Pediatrics. 1999 Jul. 104(1 Pt 2):178-86. [Medline].

Bays J. Conditions mistaken for child abuse. Reece RM, Ludwig S, eds. Child Abuse: Medical Diagnosis and Management. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. 287-306.

Bays J, Chadwick D. Medical diagnosis of the sexually abused child. Child Abuse Negl. 1993 Jan-Feb. 17(1):91-110. [Medline].

Bays J, Jenny C. Genital and anal conditions confused with child sexual abuse trauma. Am J Dis Child. 1990 Dec. 144(12):1319-22. [Medline].

Berenson AB. Normal anogenital anatomy. Child Abuse Negl. 1998 Jun. 22(6):589-96; discussion 597-603. [Medline].

Berkowitz CD. Medical consequences of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 1998 Jun. 22(6):541-50; discussion 551-4. [Medline].

Briere JN, Elliott DM. Immediate and long-term impacts of child sexual abuse. Future Child. 1994 Summer-Fall. 4(2):54-69. [Medline].

Burgess AW, Groth AN, Holmstrom LL, Sgroi SM. Sexual Assault of Children and Adolescents. New York, NY: Lexington Books; 1978.

CDC. Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at

Cooper A. Thoracoabdominal trauma. Ludwig S, Kornberg AE, eds. Child Abuse: A Medical Reference. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone; 1991. 131-50.

De Jong AR, Rose M. Frequency and significance of physical evidence in legally proven cases of child sexual abuse. Pediatrics. 1989 Dec. 84(6):1022-6. [Medline].

De Jong AR, Rose M. Legal proof of child sexual abuse in the absence of physical evidence. Pediatrics. 1991 Sep. 88(3):506-11. [Medline].

DeLago C, Deblinger E, Schroeder C, Finkel MA. Girls who disclose sexual abuse: urogenital symptoms and signs after genital contact. Pediatrics. 2008 Aug. 122(2):e281-6. [Medline].

Douglas Em, finkelhor D. Child Sexual Abuse Fact Sheet. Crimes against Children Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. Available at Accessed: September 2007.

Emans SJ, Goldstein DP. Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co Inc; 1990.

Feldman W, Feldman E, Goodman JT, et al. Is childhood sexual abuse really increasing in prevalence? An analysis of the evidence. Pediatrics. 1991 Jul. 88(1):29-33. [Medline].

Finkel M. Physical examination. Finkel M, Giardino A, eds. Medical Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2001. 39-98.

Finkel M. The evaluation. Finkel M, Giardino A, eds. Medical Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2001. 23-37.

Finkel MA. “I can tell you because you’re a doctor”. Pediatrics. 2008 Aug. 122(2):442. [Medline].

Finkel MA. Sexual abuse: The medical evaluation. Giardino AG, Alexander R, eds. Child Maltreatment: A Clinical Guide and Reference. St Louis, MO: GW Medical Publishing Inc; 2005. 253-88.

Finkel MA. Technical conduct of the child sexual abuse medical examination. Child Abuse Negl. 1998 Jun. 22(6):555-66. [Medline].

Finkel MA, DeJong AJ. Medical findings in child sexual abuse. Reece RM, Ludwig S, eds. Child Abuse: Medical Diagnosis and Management. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. 207-86.

Finkelhor D. Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. Future Child. 1994 Summer-Fall. 4(2):31-53. [Medline].

Finkelhor D. Epidemiological factors in the clinical identification of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 1993 Jan-Feb. 17(1):67-70. [Medline].

Finkelhor D, et al. A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. London UK: Sage Publications; 1988.

Finkelhor D, Moore D, Hamby SL, Straus MA. Sexually abused children in a national survey of parents: methodological issues. Child Abuse Negl. 1997 Jan. 21(1):1-9. [Medline].

Finkelhor DH. Child sexual abuse: New Theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press; 1984.

Friedrich WN. Behavioral manifestations of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 1998 Jun. 22(6):523-31; discussion 533-9. [Medline].

Gorey KM, Leslie DR. The prevalence of child sexual abuse: integrative review adjustment for potential response and measurement biases. Child Abuse Negl. 1997 Apr. 21(4):391-8. [Medline].

Gushurst CA. Child abuse: behavioral aspects and other associated problems. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2003 Aug. 50(4):919-38. [Medline].

Dubowitz H, DePanfilis D, eds. Handbook for Child Protection Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2000.

Jones LM, Finkelhor D, Halter S. Child maltreatment trends in the 1990s: why does neglect differ from sexual and physical abuse?. Child Maltreat. 2006 May. 11(2):107-20. [Medline].

Kellogg ND, Parra JM, Menard S. Children with anogenital symptoms and signs referred for sexual abuse evaluations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998 Jul. 152(7):634-41. [Medline].

Kempe CH. Sexual abuse, another hidden pediatric problem: the 1977 C. Anderson Aldrich lecture. Pediatrics. 1978 Sep. 62(3):382-9. [Medline].

Kerns DL, Terman DL, Larson CS. The role of physicians in reporting and evaluating child sexual abuse cases. Future Child. 1994 Summer-Fall. 4(2):119-34. [Medline].

Ladson S, Johnson CF, Doty RE. Do physicians recognize sexual abuse?. Am J Dis Child. 1987 Apr. 141(4):411-5. [Medline].

Larson C, Terman DL, Gomby DS, et al. Sexual abuse of children: recommendations and analysis. Future Child. 1994 Summer-Fall. 4(2):4-30. [Medline].

Lentsch KA, Johnson CF. Do physicians have adequate knowledge of child sexual abuse? The results of two surveys of practicing physicians, 1986 and 1996. Child Maltreat. 2000 Feb. 5(1):72-8. [Medline].

Leventhal JM. Epidemiology of sexual abuse of children: old problems, new directions. Child Abuse Negl. 1998 Jun. 22(6):481-91. [Medline].

Levitt C. Further technical considerations regarding conducting and documenting the child sexual abuse medical examination. Child Abuse Negl. 1998 Jun. 22(6):567-8; discussion 569-71. [Medline].

Ludwig S. Child abuse. Fleisher GR, Ludwig S, eds. Textbook of Pediatric Emergency Medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000.

Marshall WN, Locke C. Statewide survey of physician attitudes to controversies about child abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 1997 Feb. 21(2):171-9. [Medline].

McCann J, Voris J, Simon M. Genital injuries resulting from sexual abuse: a longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 1992 Feb. 89(2):307-17. [Medline].

Muram D. Child sexual abuse: relationship between sexual acts and genital findings. Child Abuse Negl. 1989. 13(2):211-6. [Medline].

Myers JE. Adjudication of child sexual abuse cases. Future Child. 1994 Summer-Fall. 4(2):84-101. [Medline].

Myers JE. Legal Issues in Child Abuse and Neglect Practice (Interpersonal Violence). 2nd ed. SAGE Publications; 1998.

Myers JE. Expert testimony. Briere J, Berliner L, Buckley JA, et al, eds. The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment. Sage Publications; 1996. 319-40.

Nadal FM, Giardino AP. Differential diagnosis: conditions that mimic child maltreatment. Giardino ER, Giardino AP. Nursing Approach to the Evaluation of Child Maltreatment. St. Louis, MO: GW Medical Publishing; 2003. 215-50.

Nicholson EB, Bulkley J. Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases: A Resource Book for Judges and Court Personnel. Washington, DC: American Bar Association; 1988.

Pence DM, Wilson CA. Reporting and investigating child sexual abuse. Future Child. 1994 Summer-Fall. 4(2):70-83. [Medline].

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The Physical Signs of Child Sexual Abuse. An Evidence-Based Review and Guidance for Best Practice. 2008.

Russell DE. The incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse of female children. Child Abuse Negl. 1983. 7(2):133-46. [Medline].

Sgroi SM. Sexual molestation of children. The last frontier in child abuse. Child Today. 1975 May-Jun. 4(3):18-21, 44. [Medline].

Swanston HY, Tebbutt JS, O’Toole BI, Oates RK. Sexually abused children 5 years after presentation: a case-control study. Pediatrics. 1997 Oct. 100(4):600-8. [Medline].

US Dept of Health and Human Services. Child Maltreatment 2002: Summary of Key Findings. 2004.

Angelo P Giardino, MD, MPH, PhD Professor and Section Head, Academic General Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine; Senior Vice President and Chief Quality Officer, Texas Children’s Hospital

Angelo P Giardino, MD, MPH, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: Academic Pediatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, Harris County Medical Society, International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, Ray E Helfer Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Reena Isaac, MD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine; Forensic Pediatrician, Child Protection Section of Emergency Department, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston; Staff Physician, Children’s Assessment Center, Houston

Reena Isaac, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pediatrics, Texas Pediatric Society, Ray E Helfer Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Eileen R Giardino, RN, MSN, PhD, ANP-BC, FNP-BC Associate Professor of Nursing, Department of Family Nursing, University of Texas Health Sciences Center Houston, School of Nursing

Eileen R Giardino, RN, MSN, PhD, ANP-BC, FNP-BC is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American College Health Association, American Nurses Association, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Mary L Windle, PharmD Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Caroly Pataki, MD Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine

Caroly Pataki, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New York Academy of Sciences, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chet Johnson, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Associate Director and Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrician, KU Center for Child Health and Development, Shiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies; Assistant Dean, Faculty Affairs and Development, University of Kansas School of Medicine

Chet Johnson, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pediatrics

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

The authors acknowledge the consistent support and mentorship by Carol D Berkowitz who, despite multiple clinical, teaching, and administrative responsibilities, has found the time to share her considerable expertise and even took the time out of her busy schedule to provide the photographs used to illustrate the physical findings possible when evaluating cases of suspected child sexual abuse. Dr. Berkowitz exemplifies the characteristics of a committed medical educator who is not limited by organizational or geographic boundaries.

Child Sexual Abuse

Research & References of Child Sexual Abuse|A&C Accounting And Tax Services