ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2023
Canadian C-spine Rule versus NEXUS in Screening of Clinically Important Traumatic Cervical Spine Injuries; a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical Collar in Adult Trauma: Evidence, Controversies, and Clinical Decision-Making.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Review
- An overview of systematic reviews investigating clinical features for diagnosing neck pain and its associated disorders.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2025Review
- The Initial Assessment and Management of Cervical Spine Injuries: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Can generative artificial intelligence provide accurate medical advice?: a case of ChatGPT versus Congress of Neurological Surgeons management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries clinical guidelines.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Correlation of clinical and radiological findings in patients with spinal trauma at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital.SA journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Predicting the Presence of Traumatic Chest Injuries Using Machine Learning Algorithm.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
- The hidden value of MRI: modifying treatment decisions in C-spine injuries.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Role of Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Lower- and Middle-Income Countries and Austere Environments.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- NEXUS vs. Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) in Predicting Cervical Spine Injuries; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Review
- 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
- Age-appropriateness of decision for brain CT scan in elderly patients with mild traumatic brain injury.World journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) are two criteria designed to rule-out clinically important traumatic cervical Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we reviewed the articles comparing the performance of these two models. Methods: Search was done in Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science until June 2022. Observational studies with direct comparison of CCR and NEXUS criteria in detection of clinically important cervical SCI were included. Two independent reviewers screened the relevant articles and summarized the data. Certainty of evidence was assessed based on QUADAS-2. Data were recorded as true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative. Then, using " Results: We included 5 studies with direct comparison. Area under the ROC curve of NEXUS in screening of patients with clinically important cervical SCI was 0.708 (95% CI: 0.647 to 0.762). Pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEXUS criteria in screening of patients with clinically important cervical SCI were 0.899 (95% CI: 0.845 to 0.936) and 0.398 (95% CI: 0.315 to 0.488). The positive and negative likelihood ratios of NEXUS were 1.494 (95% CI: 1.146 to 1.949) and 0.254 (95% CI: 1.155 to 1.414), respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio of NEXUS was 5.894 (95% CI: 3.372 to 10.305). Furthermore, area under the ROC curve of CCR in screening of clinically important cervical SCI was 0.793 (95% CI: 0.657 to 0.884). Meta-analysis results showed that pooled sensitivity of CCR criteria in screening of patients with clinically important cervical SCI was 0.987 (95% CI: 0.957 to 0.996) and specificity was 0.167 (95% CI: 0.073 to 0.336). The positive and negative likelihood ratios of CCR were 1.184 (95% CI: 0.837 to 1.675) and 0.081 (95% CI: 0.021 to 0.308), respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio of CCR was 14.647 (95% CI: 3.678 to 58.336). Conclusion: Based on studies, both CCR and NEXUS were sensitive rules that have the potential to reduce unnecessary imaging in cervical spine trauma patients. However, the low specificity and false-positive results of both of these tools indicate that many people will continue to undergo unnecessary imaging after screening of cervical SCI using these tools. In this meta-analysis, CCR appeared to have better screening accuracy.
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.