PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10624933

False rape: a case report.

Abstract

A 16-year-old girl was admitted to the emergency department for sexual assault. The forensic examination revealed genital lesions of an age that were incompatible with her statements. She also presented extragenital lesions that resembled self-inflicted lesions. The reports of false rape allegations in the literature have all dealt with the motivations of the false victims. This case report is a reminder that an allegation of rape can be considered only on the basis of proof and not on speculation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Fanton, P Schoendorff, P Achache, A Miras, D Malicier. 1999. False rape: a case report.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000433-199912000-00012

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Blunt abdominal trauma: screening us in 2,693 patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of screening abdominal ultrasonography (US) in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with blunt abdominal trauma underwent US. The abdomen and pelvis were scanned for free fluid, the visceral organs were assessed for heterogeneity, and duplex US was performed if necessary. Empty bladders were filled with 200-300 mL of sterile saline through a Foley catheter. US findings were considered positive if free fluid was present or if parenchymal abnormalities that could be consistent with trauma were detected. Screening US results were compared with findings of diagnostic peritoneal lavage, repeat US, computed tomography (CT), cystography, surgery, and/or autopsy and/or the clinical course. RESULTS: Findings from 2,693 US examinations were evaluated and were positive in 145 of 172 patients with injuries (sensitivity, 84%) and 64 (89%) of 72 patients who ultimately underwent laparotomy with surgical repair of injuries. False-negative findings were retroperitoneal injury, bowel injury, and intraperitoneal solid organ injury without hemoperitoneum. No patient with false-negative findings died. Specificity of US was 96% (2,429 of 2,521 patients), and overall accuracy was 96% (2,574 of 2,693 patients). Positive predictive value was 61% (145 of 237 patients), and negative predictive value was 99% (2,429 of 2,456 patients). CONCLUSION: Abdominal US is useful in screening for injury in patients with blunt abdominal trauma, and its use represents a notable change in institutional practice. Diagnostic peritoneal lavage is rarely performed, and CT is used when screening US findings are positive, when injury is clinically suspected despite negative US findings, or when US is not available.

Abdominal Injuries↗

Performance of CT in detection of bowel injury.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to identify relevant and reliable CT signs of bowel injury, to determine the overall performance of CT in detection of bowel injuries, and to establish the effect of the training level of radiologists on this performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Abdominal CT scans of 112 patients with blunt abdominal trauma were prospectively and retrospectively reviewed. Fifty patients had proven bowel injuries (with or without other visceral injuries), whereas 62 patients had no bowel injury and comprised the comparison or control group. Thirty-one of the 62 patients in the comparison group had surgical proof of abdominal but not bowel or mesenteric injuries. The retrospective review of the 112 CT scans was performed randomly and individually by nine radiologists unaware of the diagnosis, including three faculty abdominal radiologists, three senior residents in training, and three junior residents in training. Individual performance and group performance were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic analysis, and interobserver agreement was tested. Individual CT signs as relevant predictors of bowel injury were identified by logistic regression. RESULTS: Relevant predictors of bowel injury included mesenteric infiltration, bowel wall thickening, extravasation of vascular or enteric contrast agent, and the presence free air. In the retrospective blinded review, CT showed good to excellent interobserver reliability for individual CT signs as well as for diagnosis of bowel and visceral injuries. Faculty radiologists tended to diagnose injuries with greater accuracy and confidence, but they showed significantly better performance than residents only in diagnosing duodenal perforation. For the prospective CT diagnosis of bowel injury, CT had a sensitivity of 64%, an accuracy of 82%, and a specificity of 97%. CONCLUSION: Bowel injuries are challenging to diagnose on CT. Radiologists with various levels of experience and expertise can achieve accurate and reproducible results using a variety of CT criteria.

Abdominal Injuries↗