ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2018
External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands.
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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overuse of computed tomography for mild head injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- S100B, GFAP, UCH-L1 and NSE as predictors of abnormalities on CT imaging following mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.Neurosurgical review · 2022Pooled it
- GFAP and S100B: What You Always Wanted to Know and Never Dared to Ask.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Blood biomarkers on admission in acute traumatic brain injury: Relations to severity, CT findings and care path in the CENTER-TBI study.EBioMedicine · 2020Trial
- Evaluation of a targeted, theory-informed implementation intervention designed to increase uptake of emergency management recommendations regarding adult patients with mild traumatic brain injury: results of the NET cluster randomised trial.Implementation science : IS · 2019Trial
- 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 · 2026Article
- CT Brain Utilization After Low-Risk Head Injury in Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review.Cureus · 2026Article
- An external validation of clinical-based score to predict traumatic intracranial hemorrhage on computed tomography scan and surgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury patients.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Review
- Outcomes after Traumatic Brain Injury with and Without Computed Tomography.Journal of neurotrauma · 2025Article
- Association of Blood-Based Biomarkers and 6-Month Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Mild TBI: A CENTER-TBI Analysis.Neurology · 2025Observational
- Observational
- Munich cCT Rule for Patients with Recreational Drug and Ethanol Poisoning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Head injuries in prehospital and Emergency Department settings: a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study in France.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical decision rules in predicting computed tomography scan findings and need for neurosurgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Observational
- 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 · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparing blood biomarkers to clinical decision rules to select patients suspected of traumatic brain injury for head computed tomography.The neuroradiology journal · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Clinical Characteristics and CT Decision Rules in Elderly Patients with Minor Head Injury: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Applicability of machine learning technique in the screening of patients with mild traumatic brain injury.PloS one · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
21 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.