Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28940048›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2018

Validity and reliability of clinical prediction rules used to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck: part 2. A systematic review from the Cervical Assessment and Diagnosis Research Evaluation (CADRE) Collaboration.

N Moser, N Lemeunier, D Southerst, H Shearer, K Murnaghan, D Sutton, P Côté

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

N MoserDivision of Graduate Education and Research, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto, ON, Canada.
N LemeunierInstitut Franco-Européen de Chiropraxie, 72 chemin de la Flambère, 31300, Toulouse, France. nlemeunier@ifec.net.ORCID 0000-0002-0032-7631
D SoutherstDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Occupational and Industrial Orthopaedic Centre, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, 63 Downing Street, New York, NY, 10014, USA.
H ShearerDivision of Graduate Education and Research, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto, ON, Canada.
K MurnaghanCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto, ON, Canada.
D SuttonUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, 2000 Simcoe St. N, Oshawa, ON, L1H 7K4, Canada.
P CôtéUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, 2000 Simcoe St. N, Oshawa, ON, L1H 7K4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo update findings of the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) on the validity and reliability of clinical prediction rules used to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk adult patients with blunt trauma to the neck.

methodsWe searched four databases from 2005 to 2015. Pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the modified QUADAS-2 and QAREL criteria. We synthesized low risk of bias studies following best evidence synthesis principles.

resultsWe screened 679 citations; five had a low risk of bias and were included in our synthesis. The sensitivity of the Canadian C-spine rule ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 with negative predictive values ranging from 99 to 100%. Inter-rater reliability of the Canadian C-spine rule varied from k = 0.60 between nurses and physicians to k = 0.93 among paramedics. The inter-rater reliability of the Nexus Low-Risk Criteria was k = 0.53 between resident physicians and faculty physicians.

conclusionsOur review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and supports the use of clinical prediction rules in emergency care settings to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk adult patients with blunt trauma to the neck. The Canadian C-spine rule consistently demonstrated excellent sensitivity and negative predictive values. Our review, however, suggests that the reproducibility of the clinical predictions rules varies depending on the examiners level of training and experience.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdultCanadaCervical VertebraeHumansMass ScreeningNeck InjuriesNeck PainReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificitySpinal InjuriesWounds, NonpenetratingCanadian C-spine ruleClinical prediction ruleNeck painNexus low-risk criteriaReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID28940048

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.