Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30143521›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2018

External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands.

Kelly A Foks, Crispijn L van den Brand, Hester F Lingsma, Joukje van der Naalt, Bram Jacobs, Eline de Jong, Hugo F den Boogert, Özcan Sir, Peter Patka, Suzanne Polinder and 11 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Impact of routine use of the GFAP and UCH-L1 TBI blood test for management of mild TBI on patient care in a European emergency department.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Efficacy of the Canadian CT Head Rule in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Minor Head Injury.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Kelly A FoksDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands k.foks@erasmusmc.nl.
Crispijn L van den BrandDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Haaglanden Medical Centre, The Hague, Netherlands.
Hester F LingsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Joukje van der NaaltDepartment of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Bram JacobsDepartment of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Eline de JongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Haaglanden Medical Centre, The Hague, Netherlands.
Hugo F den BoogertDepartment of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Özcan SirDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Peter PatkaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Suzanne PolinderDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Menno I GaakeerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Admiraal De Ruyter Hospital, Goes, Netherlands.
Charlotte E SchutteDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Admiraal De Ruyter Hospital, Goes, Netherlands.
Kim E JieDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.
Huib F ViseeDepartment of Neurology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.
Myriam G M HuninkDepartment of Radiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Eef ReijnersDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Meriam BraaksmaDepartment of Neurology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Guus G SchoonmanDepartment of Neurology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Korné JellemaDepartment of Neurology, Haaglanden Medical Centre, The Hague, Netherlands.
Diederik W J DippelDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus MC · NLMedisch Centrum Haaglanden · NLAdmiraal De Ruyter Ziekenhuis · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury.

designProspective, multicentre cohort study.

settingThree university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands.

participantsConsecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury.

resultsFor the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold.

conclusionsApplication of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesCraniocerebral TraumaDecision MakingEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleGlasgow Coma ScaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID30143521
PMCPMC6108278
OpenAlexW2888191426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.