ArticleEmergency radiology2024
Current analysis of age and cervical spine fractures.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThe Canadian Cervical Spine Rule (CCR) was based on patient data from 25 years ago and recommended cervical spine computed tomography (CSCT) for trauma patients aged 65 and older. We sought to determine the differences in rate of symptomatic and asymptomatic fractures of trauma patients ≥ 65 and < 65 years old, given the changing demographics and heterogeneity in today's elderly population.
methodsThis retrospective study of CSCT results from two hospitals in our health system included 5 years of trauma patient data. In addition to the primary variable of fracture rates, we separated the patients into symptomatic / asymptomatic groups and ≥ 65 and < 65 years of age.
resultsIn the ≥ 65 age group, 190 fractures among 9455 CSCTs (2.0%) were identified (112 females = 58.9%); 29 (0.3%) were in asymptomatic patients. In patients < 65, there were 199 (1.6%) fractures out of 12,531 CSCTs of which 19 (0.15%) were asymptomatic and 46 were female (23.1%). The rates of fractures in the older cohort (2.0%) were substantially different than those reported in the original CCR articles (5.2% and 6.6%). However, the fracture rates reported for those < 65 (1.4% and 1.7% historically) were similar to the current findings (1.6%).
conclusionThe cervical spine fracture rate at our institution for patients ≥ 65, at 2.0%, was higher than those patients < 65 (1.6%) and favored female (58.9-23.1%) patients. The findings were much lower than those CCR percentages that led to scanning trauma patients who are 65 and older. Asymptomatic fractures are rarer still (0.15-0.30%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39476164What 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.