ArticleThe patient2020
Adapting two American Decision Aids for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury to the Canadian Context Using the Nominal Group Technique.
Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Facilitators and Barriers of the Use of Prognostic Models for Clinical Decision Making in Acute Neurologic Care: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Pooled it
- Applicability of machine learning technique in the screening of patients with mild traumatic brain injury.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Patient-Oriented Research from the ISDM 2019 Conference: A Legacy Now More Relevant Than Ever.The patient · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 12 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision aids are patient-focused tools that have the potential to reduce the overuse of head computed tomography (CT) scans.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to create a consensus among Canadian mild traumatic brain injury and emergency medicine experts on modifications required to adapt two American decision aids about head CT use for adult and paediatric mild traumatic brain injury to the Canadian context.
methodsWe invited 21 Canadian stakeholders and the two authors of the American decision aids to a Nominal Group Technique consensus meeting to generate suggestions for adapting the decision aids. This method encourages idea generation and sharing between team members. Each idea was discussed and then prioritised using a voting system. We collected data using videotaping, writing material and online collaborative writing tools. The modifications proposed were analysed using a qualitative thematic content analysis.
resultsTwenty-one participants took part in the meeting, including researchers and clinician researchers (n = 9; 43%), patient partners (n = 3; 14%) and decision makers (n = 2; 10%). A total of 84 ideas were generated. Participants highlighted the need to clarify the purpose of the decision aids, the nature of the problem being addressed and the target population. The tools require sociocultural adaptations, better identification of their target population, better description of head CT utility, advantages and related risks, modification of the visual and written representation of the risk of brain injury and head CT use, and locally adapted, patient follow-up plans.
conclusionsThis study based on a Nominal Group Technique identified several adaptations for two American decision aids about head CT use for mild traumatic brain injury to support their use in Canada's different healthcare, social, cultural and legal context. These adaptations concerned the target users of the decision aids, the information presented, and how the benefits and risks were communicated in the decision aids. Future steps include prototyping the two adapted decision aids, conducting formative evaluations with actual emergency department patients and clinicians, and measuring the impact of the adapted tools on CT scan use.
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.