ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022
Assessment of cervical spine CT scans by emergency physicians: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study in a non-clinical setting.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potential change in healthcare costs of implementing artificial intelligence for detecting cervical spine fractures on CT: an early health technology assessment.European radiology · 2026Article
- Determining the need for stabilising therapy of cervical spine injuries on CT: towards standardising decision-making in the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing the Performance of Models from the 2022 RSNA Cervical Spine Fracture Detection Competition at a Level I Trauma Center.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence algorithm versus radiologists for fracture detection on cervical spine CT.European radiology · 2024Article
- Assessment of cervical spine CT scans by emergency physicians: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study in a non-clinical setting.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of assessing injuries on cervical spine computed tomography (CT) scans by trained emergency physicians and radiologists, both in a non-clinical setting.
methodsIn this comparative diagnostic accuracy study, 411 cervical spine CT scans, of which 120 contained injuries (fractures and/or dislocations), were divided into 8 subsets. Eight emergency physicians received focused training and assessed 1 subset each before and after training. Four radiologists assessed 2 subsets each. Diagnostic accuracy between both groups was compared. The reference standard used was a multiverified data set, assessed by radiologists, neurosurgeons, and emergency physicians. The neurosurgeons also classified whether an "injury in need of stabilizing therapy" (IST) was present.
resultsPosttraining, the emergency physicians demonstrated increased sensitivity and specificity for identifying cervical spine injuries compared to pretraining: sensitivity 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80% to 93%) versus 80% (95% CI 72% to 87%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85% to 93%) versus 86% (95% CI 81% to 89%). When comparing the trained emergency physicians to the group of radiologists, no difference in sensitivity was found, 88% (95% CI 80% to 83%); however, the radiologists showed a significantly higher specificity (
conclusionAfter focused training and in a non-clinical setting, no significant difference was found between emergency physicians and radiologists in ruling out cervical spine injuries; however, the radiologists achieved a significantly higher specificity.
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.