ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2021
Accuracy and Clinical Utility of Reports from Outside Hospitals for CT of the Cervical Spine in Blunt Trauma.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMultidetector CT is the workhorse for detecting blunt cervical spine injury. There is no standard of care for re-interpretation of radiology images for patients with blunt trauma transferred to a higher level of care. The clinical impact of discrepancies of cervical spine CT reads remains unclear. We evaluated the discordance between primary (from referring hospitals) and secondary radiology interpretations (from a receiving level I tertiary trauma center) of cervical spine CT scans in patients with blunt trauma and assessed the clinical implications of missed cervical spine fractures. MATERIALS AND
methodsMedical records of patients with blunt trauma transferred to our institution between 2008 and 2015 were reviewed. Primary and secondary interpretations were compared and categorized as concordant and discordant. Two senior neuroradiologists adjudicated discordant reports. The benefit of re-interpretation was determined. For discordant cases, outcomes at discharge, injury severity pattern, treatment, and arrival in a cervical collar were assessed.
resultsSix hundred fifty patients were included; 608 (94%) presented with concordant reports: 401 (61.7%) with fractures and 207 (31.8%) with no fractures. There were 42 (6.5%) discordant reports; 18 (2.8%) were cervical spine injuries undetected on the primary interpretation. Following adjudication, the secondary interpretation improved the sensitivity (99.3% versus 95.7%) and specificity (99.1% versus 91.7%) in detecting cervical spine fractures compared with the primary interpretation alone (
conclusionsThere was an overall 6.5% discordance rate between primary and secondary interpretations of cervical spine CT scans. The secondary interpretation of the cervical spine CT increased the sensitivity and specificity of detecting cervical spine fractures in patients with blunt trauma transferred to higher-level care.
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.