Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29215711›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in pediatric trauma patients.

Annelie Slaar, M M Fockens, Junfeng Wang, Mario Maas, David J Wilson, J Carel Goslings, Niels Wl Schep, Rick R van Rijn

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Acute management of spinal fractures: What you need to know.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026
    Review
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Traumatic pediatric cervical spine injury-a proposed clearance algorithm incorporating a 24-h time delay.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Pediatric Spine Trauma.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2022
    Article
  14. Increased and unjustified CT usage in paediatric C-spine clearance in a level 2 trauma centre.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Annelie SlaarDepartment of Radiology, Westfriesgasthuis, Maelsonstraat 3, Hoorn, Noord Holland, Netherlands, 1624 NP.
M M Fockens
Junfeng Wang
Mario Maas
David J Wilson
J Carel Goslings
Niels Wl Schep
Rick R van Rijn
Academic Medical Center · NLSt Lukes Hospital · GBUniversity of Amsterdam · NLWestfriesgasthuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare. Nonetheless, missing these injuries can have severe consequences. To prevent the overuse of radiographic imaging, two clinical decision tools have been developed: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Both tools are proven to be accurate in deciding whether or not diagnostic imaging is needed in adults presenting for blunt trauma screening at the emergency department. However, little information is known about the accuracy of these triage tools in a pediatric population.

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule in a pediatric population evaluated for CSI following blunt trauma. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following databases to 24 February 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE Non-Indexed and In-Process Citations, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment, and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all retrospective and prospective studies involving children following blunt trauma that evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria, the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both. Plain radiography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and follow-up were considered as adequate reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 checklists. They extracted data on study design, patient characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical parameters, target condition, reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We calculated and plotted sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value in ROC space, and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. MAIN

resultsThree cohort studies were eligible for analysis, including 3380 patients ; 96 children were diagnosed with CSI. One study evaluated the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule and the NEXUS criteria, and two studies evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria. The studies were of moderate quality. Due to the small number of included studies and the diverse outcomes of those studies, we could not describe a pooled estimate for the diagnostic test accuracy. The sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria of the individual studies was 0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.90), 0.98 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). The specificity of the NEXUS criteria was 0.35 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.45), 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.62) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21). For the Canadian C-spine Rule the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.15 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.23). Since the quantity of the data was small we were not able to investigate heterogeneity. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and CCR in children. At the moment, there is not enough evidence to determine the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule to detect CSI in pediatric trauma patients following blunt trauma. The confidence interval of the sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria between the individual studies showed a wide range, with a lower limit varying from 0.18 to 0.91 with a total of four false negative test results, meaning that if physicians use the NEXUS criteria in children, there is a chance of missing CSI. Since missing CSI could have severe consequences with the risk of significant morbidity, we consider that the NEXUS criteria are at best a guide to clinical assessment, with current evidence not supporting strict or protocolized adoption of the tool into pediatric trauma care. Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the sensitivity differs among several studies, and individual confidence intervals of these studies show a wide range. Our main conclusion is therefore that additional well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to better evaluate the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both, in order to determine whether they are appropriate triage tools for the clearance of the cervical spine in children following blunt trauma.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesCervical VertebraeChecklistChildCohort StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiographyReference StandardsSpinal InjuriesTomography, X-Ray ComputedTriageWounds, Nonpenetrating

Identifiers

PMID29215711
PMCPMC6486014
OpenAlexW1961004520

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.