ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2014
Adherence to head computed tomography guidelines for mild traumatic brain injury.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Overuse of computed tomography for mild head injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic role of serum copeptin levels in adults with graded traumatic brain injury.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Abnormal Brain CT Scan Findings in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical decision rules in predicting computed tomography scan findings and need for neurosurgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Observational
- Variability in the indication of brain CT scan after mild traumatic brain injury. A transnational survey.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
- Outcomes in Patients With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Without Acute Intracranial Traumatic Injury.JAMA network open · 2022Observational
- Validity of Serum miRNA 93 and miRNA 191 to Reduce Unnecessary Computed Tomography in Patients With Mild Head Trauma.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2020Article
- Does distracting pain justify performing brain computed tomography in multiple traumas with mild head injury?Emergency radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant health concern. While 70-90% of TBI cases are considered mild, decision-making regarding imaging can be difficult. This survey aimed to assess whether clinicians' decision-making was consistent with the most recent American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) clinical recommendations regarding indications for a non-contrast head computed tomography (CT) in patients with mild TBI.
methodsWe surveyed 2 academic emergency medicine departments. Six realistic clinical vignettes were created. The survey software randomly varied 2 factors: age (30, 59, or 61 years old) and presence or absence of visible trauma above the clavicles. A single important question was asked: "Would you perform a non-contrast head CT on this patient?"
resultsPhysician decision-making was consistent with the guidelines in only 62.8% of total vignettes. By age group (30, 59, and 61), decision-making was consistent with the guidelines in 66.7%, 47.4%, and 72.7% of cases, respectively. This was a statistically-significant difference when comparing the 59- and 61-year-old age groups. In the setting of presence/absence of trauma above the clavicles, respondents were consistent with the guidelines in 57.1% of cases. Decision-making consistent with the guidelines was significantly better in the absence of trauma above the clavicles.
conclusionRespondents poorly differentiated the "older" patients from one another, suggesting that respondents either inappropriately apply the guidelines or are unaware of the recommendations in this setting. No particular cause for inconsistency could be determined, and respondents similarly under-scanned and over-scanned in incorrect vignettes. Improved dissemination of the ACEP clinical policy and recommendations is a potential solution to this problem.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.