Over the last 2 decades, a small number of pediatricians, radiologists, neurosurgeons, pathologists, attorneys, and journalists have advanced scientifically unsupported theories both in publications and in the courtroom to explain the findings of physical abuse of children. These individuals have not only obscured facts about child abuse but also generated controversy and confusion both among the public and the medical community about the diagnosis of child physical abuse and, in particular, the diagnosis of abusive head trauma. The purposes of this Viewpoint are to describe the inappropriate use of scientifically unsupported theories to explain abuse, to review some of these alternative theories, to highlight how the use of such theories can affect the outcome of child abuse cases, and, most importantly, to clarify that there is no significant controversy about the diagnosis of physical abuse and abusive head trauma in clinical medicine. Rather the existing controversy in the courtroom and media has been created by the use of scientifically unsupported explanations. Flawed explanations of child abuse fall into 3 cat-

中文翻译：

---

解释儿童身体虐待的错误理论

在过去的 2 年里，少数儿科医生、放射科医生、神经外科医生、病理学家、律师和记者在出版物和法庭上提出了没有科学依据的理论，以解释对儿童身体虐待的调查结果。这些人不仅掩盖了虐待儿童的事实，而且在公众和医学界对儿童身体虐待的诊断，特别是虐待性头部创伤的诊断产生了争议和困惑。本观点的目的是描述不恰当地使用没有科学依据的理论来解释虐待，回顾这些替代理论中的一些，强调这些理论的使用如何影响虐待儿童案件的结果，最重要的是，澄清临床医学对身体虐待和虐待性头部外伤的诊断不存在重大争议。相反，法庭和媒体中存在的争议是通过使用没有科学依据的解释造成的。虐待儿童的错误解释分为三类：