Observational studyEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2024
Comparison of scoring systems for patients with head injury presenting to the emergency department.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of patients with head injuries: A retrospective study.Bioinformation · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe present study aimed to compare the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS-II), New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian Computed Tomography (CT) Head Rule (CCTHR) scoring systems, and Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS
methodsThis prospective and observational study was conducted in a tertiary care emergency medicine clinic. The study included 794 adult patients who had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score ≥ 13, and were considered as having minor head injury. Patients included in the study were categorized as having low or high risk according to the CCTHR, NOC, NEXUS-II scores, and ATLS algorithm.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 40.7 ± 18.7 years, and 592 (74.6%) were male. The proportion of patients considered as having high risk was 27.7%, 84.8%, and 34.5% according to CCTHR, NOC, and NEXUS-II, respectively. According to the ATLS, 14.7% and 14.1% of the patients were considered at medium risk and high risk, respectively. CT scanning was performed in 757 (95.3%) patients, and pathologic findings were detected in 18 patients (2.3%). NOC in contrary showed a sensitivity of 100% but a specificity of 15.6%.
conclusionIn our region, there was no significant difference among the CCTHR, NEXUS-II systems, and ATLS algorithm regarding the accuracy of pathological findings in patients with head injury; any of these systems can be used in clinical practice and determining CT scan necessity. Although the sensitivity of the NOC system is very high, it has been observed that its low specificity may lead to a large number of unnecessary CT scans, which may increase the patient-based cost and waiting time in the emergency department.
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.