Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2022
Young children with a minor traumatic head injury: clinical observation or CT scan?
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traumatic posterior fossa extradural hematoma in children: a meta-analysis and institutional experience of its clinical course, treatment and outcomes.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Do astrocytes act as immune cells after pediatric TBI?Neurobiology of disease · 2023Review
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 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, in young children with minor traumatic head injuries (MTHI) classified as intermediate risk (IR), PECARN recommends clinical observation over computer tomography (CT) scan depending on provider comfort, although both options being possible. In this study, we describe clinicians' choice and which factors were associated with this decision. This was a planned sub-study of a prospective multicenter observational study that enrolled 1006 children younger than 18 years with MTHI who presented to six emergency departments in The Netherlands. Of those, 280 children classified as IR group fulfilling one or more minor criteria, leaving the clinician with the choice between clinical observation and a CT scan. In our cohort, 228/280 (81%) children were admitted for clinical observation, 15/280 (5.4%) received a CT scan, 6/280 (2.1%) received a CT scan and were admitted for observation, and 31/280 (11%) children were discharged from the emergency department without any intervention. Three objective factors were associated with a CT scan, namely age above 2 years, the presence of any loss of consciousness (LOC), and presentation on weekend days.
conclusionIn children with MTHI in an IR group, clinicians prefer clinical observation above performing a CT scan. Older age, day of presentation, and any loss of consciousness are factors associated with a CT scan. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Clinical decision rules have been developed in the management of children of different risk groups with minor traumatic head injury (MTHI). • According to the Dutch national, clinical decision rules in children under 6 years of age up to 50% of children classify as intermediate risk (IR) and clinicians may choose between clinical observation and computed tomography (CT). WHAT IS NEW: • In this IR group, clinical observation is chosen in 81% children with MTHI. • In the subgroup where clinicians performed a CT scan, children were older and presented more frequently on a weekend day, and more frequently consciousness was lost.
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.