Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32373348›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2020

Cervical spine clearance after blunt trauma: current state of the art.

Michaël Moeri, Dominique A Rothenfluh, Christoph J Laux, Dennis E Dominguez

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michaël MoeriDivision of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0272-6385
Dominique A RothenfluhOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, UK.
Christoph J LauxDivision of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland.
Dennis E DominguezDivision of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8864-792X
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

No definite consensus exists for the clearance of the cervical spine (C-spine) after blunt trauma, despite many validated algorithms, recommendations and guidelines. We intend to answer the most relevant questions with which physicians are confronted when clearing C-spines after blunt trauma in emergency departments (EDs). To exclude significant C-spine injuries we designed an algorithm to be compatible with clinical practice, to simplify patient management and avoid unrewarding evaluation.We conducted an exploratory PubMed search including articles published from January 2000 to October 2018. Keywords used were "cervical spine", "injury", "clearance", "Canadian C-spine Rule", "CCR" and "national emergency x-radiography utilization study". Clinical and experimental studies were included in a detailed review.We based our literature review on 33 articles. While answering fundamental triage questions from daily clinical practice, the current literature is discussed in detail. We designed an algorithm for the C-spine clearance suitable for any trauma centre with a high-quality multiplanar reconstruction computerized tomography (CT) scan continuously available.The high sensitivity of the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR) prevents missing C-spine injuries while limiting the amount of unnecessary radiologic examinations. Plain radiographs were fully abandoned for C-spine clearance. A negative CT scan is sufficient to clear the majority of C-spine injuries and allows for collar removal. In case of motor symptoms or radio-clinical discrepancy, the advice of a specialized spine surgeon must be requested. Magnetic resonance imaging must not be routinely used. Neck pain despite negative imaging is not a reason to delay removal of stiff cervical collars. Cite this article:

Indexed as

algorithmcervical spinecollarc-spine clearancediagnosticstrauma

Identifiers

PMID32373348
PMCPMC7197104
OpenAlexW3015583693

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.