ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Justification of Indication for Cranial CT Imaging after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury According to the Current National Guidelines.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Update on the role of S100B in traumatic brain injury in pediatric population: a meta-analysis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024Pooled it
- Mind the guideline gap: emergent CT in patients with epilepsy for trauma rule-out-A retrospective cohort study.Neurological research and practice · 2025Article
- Current and prospective roles of magnetic resonance imaging in mild traumatic brain injury.Brain communications · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Abnormal Brain CT Scan Findings in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Biomarker role in assessing imaging needs for mild cranial trauma (BRAIN-CT): study protocol for a single-center, randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary aim was to evaluate the compliance of cranial CT indication with the national guideline-based decision rules in patients after mTBI. The secondary aim was to determine the incidence of CT pathologies among justified and unjustified CT scans and to investigate the diagnostic value of these decision rules. This is a retrospective, single-center study on 1837 patients (mean age = 70.7 years) referred to a clinic of oral and maxillofacial surgery following mTBI over a five-year period. The current national clinical decision rules and recommendations for mTBI were retrospectively applied to calculate the incidence of unjustified CT imaging. The intracranial pathologies among the justified and unjustified CT scans were presented using descriptive statistical analysis. The performance of the decision rules was ascertained by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. A total of 123 intracerebral lesions were radiologically detected in 102 (5.5%) of the study patients. Most (62.1%) of the CT scans strictly complied with the guideline recommendations, and 37.8% were not justified and likely avoidable. A significantly higher incidence of intracranial pathology was observed in patients with justified CT scans compared with patients with unjustified CT scans (7.9% vs. 2.5%,
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.