ArticleNeuroradiology2020
Pediatric minor head injury imaging practices: results from an ESPR survey.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traumatic Brain Injury-Associated Biomarkers for Pediatric Patients.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Radiologic follow-up in Fontan-associated liver disease in Europe: European Society of Paediatric Radiology survey demonstrates the need for a consensus protocol.Pediatric radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComputed tomography (CT) for minor head injury exposes a large number of children to ionizing radiation, with an associated increased lifetime risk of malignancy. To study imaging practices for children with minor head injury and the level of awareness of radiologists of the current clinical decision rules for minor traumatic brain injury (TBI).
methodsA questionnaire consisting of 17 questions was distributed electronically to 472 ESPR members. The questionnaire covered demographic information, employment status, years of experience and the current practice setting of the participants, the number of CTs performed for pediatric head trauma, awareness of clinical decision rules and use of shielding, pediatric CT protocol and MRI.
resultsThe response rate was 18.4%. The majority of participants was aged over 50 years and was full-time consultants. Regarding decision rules, 73.8% of respondents cited the NICE head injury guidelines, and 79% reported that the decision to perform CT was agreed between specialists. Shielding was used by 58.3% and 67.4% applied a specific pediatric protocol. MRI was not used for pediatric head trauma by 70.6% of respondents, although always available in 68.6% of cases. The reported obstacles to MRI use were machine availability (42.7%), the long acquisition time (39%) and patients' intolerance (18.3%), and less frequently the cost and the need for sedation.
conclusionThere is room for decreasing the use of CT for pediatric minor TBI. The use of shielding and application of pediatric CT protocols constitute areas for improvement.
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.