ArticleEmergency radiology2016
Head CT scan in Iranian minor head injury patients: evaluating current decision rules.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Factors Associated with Intracranial Hemorrhage in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Head Trauma: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Management of older adults after mild head trauma in an oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic.European geriatric medicine · 2023Observational
- Justification of Indication for Cranial CT Imaging after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury According to the Current National Guidelines.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical Indicators for Primary Cranial CT Imaging after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury-A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Blood Glucose Level as a Predictor of Abnormal Brain Computed Tomography Scan Findings in Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2023Article
- Accuracy of Canadian CT Head Rule and New Orleans Criteria for Minor Head Trauma; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2020Review
- The Applicability of New Orleans Criteria for Head Computed Tomography in Inpatient Falls With Injury.The Neurohospitalist · 2019Article
- Overuse of computed tomography for minor head injury in young patients: an analysis of promoting factors.La Radiologia medica · 2018Article
- Trends of CT utilisation in an emergency department in Taiwan: a 5-year retrospective study.BMJ open · 2016Observational
- 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
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to select one of the seven available clinical decision rules for minor head injury, for managing Iranian patients. This was a prospective cohort study evaluating medium- or high-risk minor head injury patients presenting to the Emergency Department. Patients with minor head trauma who were eligible for brain imaging based on seven available clinical decision rules (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS)-II, Neurotraumatology Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (NCWFNS), New Orleans, American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Guideline, Scandinavian, and Canadian computed tomography (CT) head rule) were selected. Subjects were underwent a non-contrast axial spiral head CT scan. The outcome was defined as abnormal and normal head CT scan. Univariate analysis and stepwise linear regression were applied to show the best combination of risk factors for detecting CT scan abnormalities. Five hundred patients with minor head trauma were underwent brain CT scan. The following criteria were derived by stepwise linear regression: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) less than 15, confusion, signs of basal skull fracture, drug history of warfarin, vomiting more than once, loss of consciousness, focal neurologic deficit, and age over 65 years. This model has 86.15 % (75.33-93.45 %) sensitivity and 46.44 % (46.67-51.25 %) specificity in detecting minor head injury patients with CT scan abnormalities (95 % confidence interval). Of seven decision rules, only the Canadian CT Head Rule possesses seven of the eight high-risk factors associated with abnormal head CT results which were identified by this study. This study underlines the Canadian CT Head Rule's utility in Iranian minor head injury patients. Our study encourages researchers to evaluate available guidelines in different communities.
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.