ArticleCureus2023
Adherence to the Canadian CT Head Rule in a Nova Scotian Emergency and Trauma Center.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Consideration of Brain CT Imaging Standard for Mild Head Injuries.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims Choosing Wisely Nova Scotia (CWNS), an affiliate of Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC), aims to address unnecessary care and tests through literature-informed lists developed by various disciplines. CWC has identified unnecessary head CTs among the top five tests, procedures, and treatments to question within the emergency department setting. The Canadian CT-scan Head Rule (CCHR) has been found to be the most effective clinical decision rule in adults with minor head injuries. This study aimed to better understand the current status of CCHR use in Nova Scotia, we conducted a retrospective audit of patient charts at the Charles V. Keating Emergency and Trauma Center in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Materials and methods Our mixed methods design included a narrative literature review, a retrospective chart audit, and a qualitative audit-feedback component with physicians who work in the emergency department (ED). The chart audit applied the guidelines for adherence to the CCHR and reported on the level of compliance within the ED. Results Analysis of qualitative data is included here, in parallel with in-depth analysis to contextualize findings from the chart audit. A total of 302 charts of patients presenting to the surveyed site were retrospectively reviewed for this study. Of the 37 cases where the CT head was indicated as per the CCHR, a CT was ordered 32 (86.5%) times. Of the 176 cases where a CT head was not indicated as per the CCHR, a CT was not ordered 155 (88.1%) times. Therefore, the CCHR was followed in 187 (87.8%) of the total 213 cases where the CCHR should be applied. Conclusions Our review revealed that the CCHR was adhered in 87.8% of cases at the surveyed ED. Identifying contextual factors that facilitate or hinder the application of CCHR in practice is critical to achieving the goal of reducing unnecessary CTs. This work will be presented to the physician group to engage and understand factors that are enablers in the process of ED minor head injury 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.