ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2024
The hidden value of MRI: modifying treatment decisions in C-spine injuries.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 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.
- [Which diagnostic tests are indicated in the emergency department after trauma to the cervical spine?]Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background dataComputed Tomography (CT) is the gold standard for cervical spine (c-spine) evaluation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) emerges due to its increasing availability and the lack of radiation exposure. However, MRI is costly and time-consuming, questioning its role in the emergency department (ED). This study investigates the added the value of an additional MRI for patients presenting with a c-spine injury in the ED.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective monocenter cohort study that included all patients with neck trauma presenting in the ED, who received imaging based on the NEXUS criteria. Spine surgeons performed a full-case review to classify each case into "c-spine injured" and "c-spine uninjured". Injuries were classified according to the AO Spine classification. We assessed patients with a c-spine injury detected by CT, who received a subsequent MRI. In this subset, injuries were classified separately in both imaging modalities. We monitored the treatment changes after the additional MRI to evaluate characteristics of this cohort and the impact of the AO Spine Neurology/Modifier modifiers.
resultsWe identified 4496 subjects, 2321 were eligible for inclusion and 186 were diagnosed with c-spine injuries in the retrospective case review. Fifty-six patients with a c-spine injury initially identified through CT received an additional MRI. The additional MRI significantly extended (geometric mean ratio 1.32, p < 0.001) the duration of the patients' stay in the ED. Of this cohort, 25% had a change in treatment strategy and among the patients with neurological symptoms (AON ≥ 1), 45.8% experienced a change in treatment. Patients that were N-positive, had a 12.4 (95% CI 2.7-90.7, p < 0.01) times higher odds of a treatment change after an additional MRI than neurologically intact patients. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our study suggests that patients with a c-spine injury and neurological symptoms benefit from an additional MRI. In neurologically intact patients, an additional MRI retains value only when carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
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.