ArticleNeurology research international2021
Prediction Score for Cervical Spine Fracture in Patients with Traumatic Neck Injury.
Article in Neurology research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Birmingham Mandible and Mid-face (BruMM) rules: interim data analysis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Diagnostic prediction models for spinal fractures in individuals with spinal pain or trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Video Laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) for Endotracheal Intubation in a Manikin with Restricted Neck Motion.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation: A Consideration for Manual In-Line Stabilization Without Cervical Collar Versus Full Immobilization.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Article
- Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Comparing the Efficacy of Long Spinal Board, Sked Stretcher, and Vacuum Mattress in Cervical Spine Immobilization; a Method-Oriented Experimental Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning for evaluation of C-spine injury from lateral neck radiographs.Heliyon · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical spine fracture is approximately 2%-5%. Diagnostic imaging in developing countries has several limitations. A computed tomography scan is not available 24 hours and not cost-effective. This study aims to develop a clinical tool to identify patients who must undergo a computed tomography scan to evaluate cervical spine fracture in a noncomputed tomography scan available hospital.
methodsThe study was a diagnostic prediction rule. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, at the emergency department. This study included all patients aged over 16 years who had suspected cervical spine injury and underwent a computed tomography scan at the emergency department. The predictive model and prediction scores were developed via multivariable logistic regression analysis.
results375 patients met the criteria. 29 (7.73%) presented with cervical spine fracture on computed tomography scan and 346 did not. Five independent factors (i.e., high-risk mechanism of injury, paraparesis, paresthesia, limited range of motion of the neck, and associated chest or facial injury) were considered good predictors of C-spine fracture. The clinical prediction score for C-spine fracture was developed by dividing the patients into three probability groups (low, 0; moderate, 1-5; and high, 6-11), and the accuracy was 82.52%. In patients with a score of 1-5, the positive likelihood ratio for C-spine fracture was 1.46. Meanwhile, those with a score of 6-11 had an LR+ of 7.16.
conclusionIn a noncomputed tomography scan available hospital, traumatic spine injuries patients with a clinical prediction score ≥1 were associated with cervical spine fracture and should undergo computed tomography scan to evaluate C-spine fracture.
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.