ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2018
Routine repeat head CT may not be necessary for patients with mild TBI.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Routine repeat computed tomography of the head in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: is it really necessary?Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Progression of mild traumatic brain injury with intracranial hemorrhage: a retrospective study of associated factors in patients managed conservatively in the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Development of a monoclonal antibody-based time-resolved fluorescence immunochromatographic assay strip for rapid and quantitative determination of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 in serum.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Article
- Hospital admission of older patients with mild traumatic brain injury and traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: is it always necessary?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based models to predict the need for neurosurgical intervention after moderate traumatic brain injury.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Machine learning models to predict traumatic brain injury outcomes in Tanzania: Using delays to emergency care as predictors.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Value of Repeat CT Brain in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients with High Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Progression.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Pitfalls in the interpretation of pediatric head CTs: what the emergency radiologist needs to know.Emergency radiology · 2022Review
- Observational
- Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review.BMC medical imaging · 2022Article
- Repeat CT after blunt head trauma and Glasgow Coma Scale score 13-15 without neurological deterioration is very low yield for intervention.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Article
- An optimal deep learning framework for multi-type hemorrhagic lesions detection and quantification in head CT images for traumatic brain injury.Applied intelligence (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Paediatric Trauma Score as a non-imaging tool for predicting intracranial haemorrhage in patients with traumatic brain injury.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Multicenter assessment of the Brain Injury Guidelines and a proposal of guideline modifications.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2020Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Clinical Criteria for Performing Brain CT-Scan in Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury; A New Diagnostic Probe.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine repeat cranial CT (RHCT) is standard of care for CT-verified traumatic brain injury (TBI). Despite mixed evidence, those with mild TBI are subject to radiation and expense from serial CT scans. Thus, we investigated the necessity and utility of RHCT for patients with mild TBI. We hypothesized that repeat head CT in these patients would not alter patient care or outcomes.
methodsWe retrospectively studied patients suffering from mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score 13-15) and treated at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center from November 2014 through January 2015. The primary outcome was the need for surgical intervention. Outcomes were compared using paired Student's t-test, and stratified by injury on initial CT, GCS change, demographics, and presenting vital signs (mean ± SD).
resultsEighty-five patients met inclusion criteria with an average initial GCS score=14.6±0.57. Our center sees about 2800 patients with TBI per year, or about 230 per month. This includes patients with concussions. This sample represents about 30% of patients with TBI seen during the study period. Ten patients required operation (four based on initial CT and others for worsening GCS, headaches, large unresolving injury). There was progression of injury on repeat CT scan in only two patients that required operation, and this accompanied clinical deterioration. The mean brain Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score was 4.8±0.3 for surgical patients on initial CT scan compared with 3.4±0.6 (P<0.001) for non-surgical patients. Initial CT subdural hematoma size was 1.1±0.6 cm for surgical patients compared with 0.49±0.3 cm (P=0.05) for non-surgical patients. There was no significant difference between intervention groups in terms of other intracranial injuries, demographics, vital signs, or change in GCS. Overall, 75 patients that did not require surgical intervention received RHCT. At $340 per CT, $51 000 was spent on unnecessary imaging ($367 000/year, extrapolated). DISCUSSION: In an environment of increased scrutiny on healthcare expenditures, it is necessary to question dogma and eliminate unnecessary cost. Our data questions the use of routine repeat head CT scans in every patient with anatomic TBI and suggests that clinically stable patients with small injury can simply be followed clinically. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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.