ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Comparison of predictive tools for management of paediatric mild TBI: a prospective cohort study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05964764 (A Pragmatic, Prospective, Multicentre Study for the Validation of the Scandinavian Guidelines for Minor and Moderate Head Trauma in Children), which is not on this 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.
A Pragmatic, Prospective, Multicentre Study for the Validation of the Scandinavian Guidelines for Minor and Moderate Head Trauma in Children
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple clinical practice guidelines and head computed tomography decision rules exist for emergency department (ED) triage of children with traumatic brain injury (TBI). These vary in structure, aim, target cohort, and outcomes, yet are used clinically in similar populations. We compared important clinical and practical characteristics of all major guidelines in a large, real-world paediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) cohort. Methods: Prospective, pragmatic, observational study of children (<18 years of age) presenting with mild-moderate TBI to 16 EDs in Sweden and Norway, including prospective documentation of guideline-specific risk factors and outcomes between April 2018 and May 2024. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy and characteristics of CATCH, CATCH2, CHALICE, PECARN, SNC16, PREDICT, and NICE23, both within guideline-specific application cohorts and across the full study cohort. The primary comparative outcome was significant trauma-related findings on cranial computed tomography (cCT). Secondary outcomes were neurosurgical interventions and guideline-specific endpoints. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05964764). Findings: The full cohort consisted of 3012 children (median age, 5.6 years; SD, 4.8). Among these, 0.9% (27/3012) had significant cCT findings, and 2/3012 (0.07%) required neurosurgery. CATCH and CATCH2 could be applied to 31.0% (934/3012) of patients, whereas the remaining guidelines were applicable to >94% of the cohort. In a comparative analysis concerning significant cCT findings, the lowest sensitivity estimates were 74.1% (95% CI: 53.7-88.9) for both PECARN ≥2 years and PREDICT ≥2 years; the highest was 100% (95% CI: 87.2-100.0) for SNC16. Specificity ranged from 41.6% (95% CI: 39.8-43.4) for SNC16 to 78.3% (95% CI: 76.8-79.8) for CHALICE. Mandatory cCT rates varied from 1.2% (PREDICT ≥2 years) to 29.9% (CATCH2). Interpretation: A head-to-head comparison in a real-world, paediatric, TBI cohort highlights key features of established guidelines and decision rules, offering insight into their comparative diagnostic accuracy, practical application and clinical impact. Funding: This work was supported by non-commercial state funding from Södra Sjukvårdsregionen, Vetenskapliga Rådet (Hallands Hospital), and Forskning och Utveckling Halland.
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.