ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock
Diagnostic Clinical Tool in Trauma Patients to Rule out Thoracolumbar Fracture.
Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock. 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The primary objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the clinical decision tool (CDT) in trauma patients, providing a comparable ability to rule out thoracolumbar (TL) fractures as traditional imaging methods. The goal is to facilitate early clearance of the TL spine without an immediate requirement for radiological tests, thereby minimizing unnecessary utilization of TL-spine imaging. Methods: A prospective, observational study was conducted on trauma patients with suspected TL injury. To achieve early TL clearance, the CDT assessed criteria such as absence of pain, tenderness, and pain-free axial movement and flexion. The study enrolled alert trauma patients with thoracic and/or lumbar spine injuries, defined by the Glasgow Coma Scale of 15. The study excluded patients not aligning with CDT criteria, such as those who received intravenous opioid analgesia within 4 h and those unable to stand due to suspected pelvic or lower limb injuries. Results: Following the completion of the CDT steps, there were 31 true negative cases, signifying the absence of TL fractures according to both CDT and imaging studies. The sensitivity of the CDT was 99.38% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96.59%-99.98%), specificity 9.1% (95% CI: 6.30%-12.73%), negative predictive value (NPV) 96.87% (95% CI: 81.02%-99.56%), positive predictive value (PPV) 34.19% (95% CI: 33.38%-35.00%), negative likelihood ratio (LHR) 0.07 (95% CI: 0.01-0.49), and positive LHR 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06-1.13). The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, negative LHR, and positive LHR varied with each step in the CDT. Notably, the overall sensitivity was high; however, the stepwise sensitivity decreased, albeit with an improvement in specificity with each further step in the tool. The overall sensitivity in the study cohort ( Conclusions: The CDT to rule out TL fracture is a feasible bedside stepwise tool in fully awake trauma patients after a thorough clinical neurological examination on arrival. The tool could help Level II or III trauma centers avoid secondary triage to the higher center.
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.