ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2021
Subarachnoid haemorrhage rules in the decision for acute CT of the head: external validation in a UK cohort.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- High risk and low incidence diseases: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
- The polk county screening tool screening for detecting subarachnoid hemorrhage.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Subarachnoid haemorrhage rules.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
- Response.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
- Assisting clinical decision making: tools, rules and teams.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byResponse.2021
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Ottawa subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) rule and the Emerald SAH rule are clinical decision tools to aid in the decision for computed tomography (CT) of the head in patients attending an emergency department (ED) with acute non-traumatic headache. The objective of this study was to analyse the performance of these rules in a contemporary UK cohort.
methodsWe performed a retrospective external validation study. Patients undergoing CT of the head for the evaluation and treatment of non-traumatic headaches over a 6-month period in the ED at two tertiary centres were assessed. Each patient's Ottawa rule and Emerald rule were calculated and compared with their final diagnosis.
resultsThe cohort consisted of 366 patients and there were 16 cases of SAH (based on CT findings or the presence of xanthochromia in cerebrospinal fluid). The Ottawa rule identified 288 patients requiring CT of the head. The sensitivity of the Ottawa rule was 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71-100%) and the specificity was 22% (95% CI 18-27%). The Emerald rule identified 267 patients who required CT, and achieved a sensitivity of 81% (95% CI 54-96%) and a specificity of 27% (95% CI 23-32%).
conclusionsThe Ottawa SAH rule correctly identified all patients with SAH in this contemporary cohort. The Emerald rule did not perform as well in this cohort and is unsuitable for clinical use. The Ottawa rule is a useful tool to aid in the decision for CT of the head in patients presenting with acute non-traumatic headache to the ED.
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.