ArticlePediatric surgery international2020
Implementation of a pediatric trauma cervical spine clearance pathway.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in paediatric trauma patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- The Use of Clinical Pathways in Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review.Health services insights · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePediatric cervical spine injuries are rare events. Missed injuries must be weighed against radiation exposure and excess resource utilization in a young population. A universal pediatric cervical spine clearance algorithm does not exist. The study objective is to determine if care improved after the implementation of a standardized cervical spine clearance pathway by evaluating imaging rates, length of stay, speciality consultation, and injury detection.
methodsA multidisciplinary group reviewed relevant literature to develop an algorithm for cervical spine clearance in pediatric trauma patients. We reviewed patient charts 15 months before and after implementation. Categorical comparisons were tested with Chi-square. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe pre- and post-implementation groups were homogenous when comparing demographics, mechanism and severity of injury. Using the cervical spine clearance pathway, patients received fewer plain cervical spine radiographs (34% vs 16%), fewer spine speciality consults (28% vs 13%), and more patients were cleared clinically (44% vs 62%) (p < 0.05). There were 2 (1.7%) documented injuries in the pre-implementation group and 3 (3%) documented injuries in the post-implementation group. There were no missed injuries.
conclusionsUse of a standardized pathway allows more patients' cervical spines to be cleared clinically and better utilizes resources without compromising patient care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. TYPE OF STUDY: Care Management Study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31435734What 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.