Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27405822›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2017

Predicting nonrecovery among whiplash patients in the emergency room and in an insurance company setting.

Eric Rydman, Sari Ponzer, Carin Ottosson, Hans Järnbert-Pettersson

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Long-term follow-up of whiplash injuries reported to insurance companies: a cohort study on patient-reported outcomes and impact of financial compensation.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Article
  4. The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review : A survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eric RydmanDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. eric.rydman@ki.se.
Sari PonzerDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Carin OttossonDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hans Järnbert-PetterssonDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo construct and validate a prediction instrument for early identification of patients with a high risk of delayed recovery after whiplash injuries (PPS-WAD) in an insurance company setting.

methodsProspective cohort study. On the basis of a historic cohort (n = 130) of patients with a whiplash injury identified in an emergency room (ER, model-building set), we used logistic regression to construct an instrument consisting of two demographic variables (i.e. questions of educational level and work status) and the patient-rated physical and mental status during the acute phase to predict self-reported nonrecovery after 6 months. We evaluated the instrument's ability to predict nonrecovery in a new cohort (n = 204) of patients originating from an insurance company setting (IC, validation set).

resultsThe prediction instrument had low reproducibility when the setting was changed from the ER cohort to the IC cohort. The overall percentage of correct predictions of nonrecovery in the ER cohort was 78 % compared with 62 % in the IC cohort. The sensitivity and specificity in relation to nonrecovery were both 78 % in the ER cohort. The sensitivity and specificity in the insurance company setting was lower, 67 and 50 %.

conclusionClinical decision rules need validation before they are used in a new setting. An instrument consisting of four questions with an excellent possibility of identifying patients with a high risk of nonrecovery after a whiplash injury in the emergency room was not as useful in an insurance company setting. The importance and type of the risk factors for not recovering probably differ between the settings, as well as the individuals.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesEmergency Service, HospitalAdultAgedCohort StudiesEducational StatusEmploymentFemaleHumansInsurance CarriersLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeck PainRecovery of FunctionReproducibility of ResultsNeck painPredictionPrognosisRisk factorsWhiplash-associated disordersWhiplash injuries

Identifiers

PMID27405822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.