Observational studyEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2024
Clinical decision rules in predicting computed tomography scan findings and need for neurosurgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Abnormal Brain CT Scan Findings in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Munich cCT Rule for Patients with Recreational Drug and Ethanol Poisoning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Overuse of CT for Minor Head Trauma Patients: A Retrospective Analysis from Poland and Lithuania Trauma Centres.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Values of S100B versus Neuron Specific Enolase for Traumatic Brain Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this study, we will compare the diagnostic values of head CT decision rules in predicting the findings of CT scans in a prospective multicenter study in university emergency departments in Iran.
methodsThe primary outcome was any traumatic lesion findings in brain CT scans, and the secondary outcomes were death, the need for mechanical ventilation, and neurosurgical intervention. Decision rules including the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), New Orleans Criteria (NOC), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS), and Neurotraumatology Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (NCWFNS) were compared for the main outcomes.
resultsIn total, 434 mild TBI patients were enrolled in the study. The NCWFNS had the highest sensitivity (91.14%) and the lowest specificity (39.42%) for predicting abnormal finding in CT scan compared to other models. While the NICE obtained the lowest sensitivity (79.75%), it was associated with the highest specificity (66.67%). All model performances were improved when administered to predict neurosurgical intervention among patients with GCS 13-15. NEXUS (AUC 0.862, 95% CI 0.799-0.924) and NCWFNS (AUC 0.813, 95% CI 0.723-0.903) had the best performance among all evaluated models.
conclusionThe NCWFNS and the NEXUS decision rules performed better than the CCHR and NICE guidelines for predicting any lesion in the CT imaging and neurosurgical intervention among patients with mTBI with GCS 13-15. For a subset of mTBI patients with GCS 15, the NOC criteria have higher sensitivity for abnormal CT imaging, but lower specificity and more requested CTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37747501What 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.