Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28835284›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2017

Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study.

Pål Johan Stokkeland, Erlend Andersen, Maria Myhre Bjørndal, Arne Morten Mikalsen, Sindre Aslaksen, Per Kristian Hyldmo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. New clinical guidelines on the spinal stabilisation of adult trauma patients - consensus and evidence based.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2019
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pål Johan StokkelandDepartment of Radiology, Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway. paasto@sshf.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8373-9390
Erlend AndersenClinic for Medical Services, Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway.
Maria Myhre BjørndalDepartment of Radiology, Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway.
Arne Morten MikalsenDepartment of Radiology, Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway.
Sindre AslaksenThe Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Drøbak, Norway.
Per Kristian HyldmoThe Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Drøbak, Norway.
Sørlandet Sykehus · NOStiftelsen Norsk Luftambulanse · NOHospital of Southern Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo reduce the possibility of secondary deterioration of spinal injuries, it is desirable to maintain the spinal immobilisation that is applied in the prehospital setting throughout computed tomography (CT) scanning. A previous study found that metallic components within the inflation valve of the vacuum mattresses caused CT artefacts. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of vacuum mattresses with plastic valves on CT artefacts, the radiation dose, and noise compared to a trauma transfer board and the spine boards currently used in our trauma system.

methodsWe scanned an anthropomorphic whole body phantom with different immobilisation devices on a 128-slice CT scanner using the standard polytrauma CT-protocol at our institution. The phantom was scanned without any immobilisation device and with three different vacuum mattresses, two spine boards, and one trauma transfer board. Two radiologists independently assessed the artefacts. Agreement between the two radiologists was measured using the kappa coefficient. The radiation dose and noise were assessed.

resultsOne spine board produced major artefacts due to its metal components. One of the vacuum mattresses resulted in artefacts that impaired clinical judgement. Otherwise, the artefacts predominantly did not impede clinical judgement and were mainly subtle. One of the vacuum mattresses resulted in no artefacts that affected clinical judgement. The overall inter-rater agreement was substantial (0.86, kappa 0.77). We did not observe any artefacts due to plastic valves. The mean CT radiation dose was slightly higher for two of the devices in the head series than that for the trauma transfer board, used as the standard in our system. Only marginal differences were noted for the other devices and series. Small differences in image noise were found between the devices.

conclusionsOur results indicate that it is feasible to maintain some vacuum mattresses with plastic valves on trauma patients during CT scanning. The tested mattresses did not result in a considerably increased radiation dose or artefacts that hampered clinical judgement. One of the tested vacuum mattresses produced no artefacts that hampered clinical judgement whatsoever.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultArtifactsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMultiple TraumaPhantoms, ImagingRestraint, PhysicalSpinal InjuriesAnthropomorphic phantomArtefactsComputed tomographyImage qualityPlastic valveSpinal immobilisationTraumaVacuum mattress

Identifiers

PMID28835284
PMCPMC5569509
OpenAlexW2748837760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.