Re: Clinical Decision Rules and Cervical Spine Injury

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Jerome R. Hoffman ◽  
William R. Mower
2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 330-337
Author(s):  
Natalie Phillips ◽  
Katie Rasmussen ◽  
Sally McGuire ◽  
Kerrie-Ann Abel ◽  
Jason Acworth ◽  
...  

BackgroundClinical decision rules (CDRs) are commonly used to guide imaging decisions in cervical spine injury (CSI) assessment despite limited evidence for their use in paediatric populations. We set out to determine CSI incidence, imaging rates and the frequency of previously identified CSI risk factors, and thus assess the projected impact on imaging rates if CDRs were strictly applied as a rule in our population.MethodsA single-centre prospective observational study on all aged under 16 years presenting for assessment of possible CSI to a tertiary paediatric emergency department over a year, commencing September 2015. CDR variables from the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) rule, Canadian C-Spine rule (CCR) and proposed Paediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) rule were collected prospectively and applied post hoc.Results1010 children were enrolled; 973 had not received prior imaging. Of these, 40.7% received cervical spine imaging; 32.4% X-rays, 13.4% CT scan and 3% MRI. All three CDRs identified the five children (0.5%) with CSI who had not received prior imaging. If CDRs were strictly applied as a rule for imaging, projected imaging rates in our setting would be as follows: NEXUS-44% (95% CI 41% to 47.4%), CCR-at least 48.4% (95% CI 45.3% to 51.7%) and PECARN-68% (95% CI 65.1% to 71.1%).ConclusionCSIs were rare (0.5% of our cohort), however, 40% of children received imaging. CDRs have been designed to guide imaging decisions; if strictly applied as a rule for imaging, the CDRs assessed in this study would increase imaging rates. Projected rates differ considerably depending on the CDR applied. These findings highlight the need for a validated paediatric-specific cervical spine imaging CDR.


Author(s):  
Brandon Allen ◽  
Latha Ganti ◽  
Bobby Desai

2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Hannon ◽  
Rebekah Mannix ◽  
Kate Dorney ◽  
David Mooney ◽  
Kara Hennelly

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 614-618
Author(s):  
Takeshi Inagaki ◽  
Akio Kimura ◽  
Go Makishi ◽  
Shigeru Tanaka ◽  
Noriko Tanaka

ObjectivePrevious cervical spine imaging decision rules have been based on positive findings on plain X-ray and are limited by lack of specificity, age restrictions and complicated algorithms. We previously derived and validated a clinical decision rule (Rule 1) for detecting cervical spine injury (CSI) on CT in a single-centre study. This recommended CT for patients with (1) GCS score <14, (2) GCS 14–15 and posterior cervical tenderness or neurological deficit, (3) age ≥60 years and fall down stairs, or (4) age <60 and injured in a motorcycle collision or fallen from height. This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of this rule and refined the rule.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, dual-centre study at two Japanese EDs between August 2012 and March 2014. Patients with head or neck injury ≥16 years of age were included. Clinical data were collected from medical records. Imaging was at the discretion of the treating physician. CSI was diagnosed as a fracture or dislocation seen on CT; patients who were not imaged were followed for 14 days. We analysed the sensitivity and specificity of Rule 1 and refined it post hoc using recursive partitioning.Results1192 patients were enrolled. 927 completed follow-up. Of these, 584 (63.0%) underwent CT imaging and 38 had CSI. Sensitivity and specificity of Rule 1 were 92.1% (95% CI 79.2% to 97.3%) and 58.6% (95% CI 55.4% to 61.9%). A second rule (Rule 2) was derived recommending CT for those with any of the following: GCS <14, cervical tenderness, neurological deficit or mechanism of injury (fall down stairs, motorcycle collision or fall from height) without age limits. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% CI 90.8% to 100%) and 51.9% (95% CI 48.6% to 55.2%), respectively.ConclusionsOur initial CT decision rule had lower sensitivity than in our initial validation study. A refined decision rule based on GCS, neck tenderness, neurological deficit and mechanism of injury showed excellent sensitivity with a small loss of specificity. Rule 2 will now need validation in an independent cohort.


2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
TVSP Murthy ◽  
Parmeet Bhatia ◽  
RL Gogna ◽  
T Prabhakar

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document