ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2025
Exploring Senior Emergency Physicians' Perspectives on the Inclusion of Clinical Biomarkers in Clinical Decision Rules for CT Head Use in Patients With Suspected Traumatic Brain Injury.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2025. 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.
- Exploring Senior Emergency Physicians' Perspectives on the Inclusion of Clinical Biomarkers in Clinical Decision Rules for CT Head Use in Patients With Suspected Traumatic Brain Injury.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 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
Abstract
backgroundClinical biomarkers are an objective test with the potential to improve CT head decision pathways by better risk stratifying patients and supporting Emergency department (ED) physician gestalt. Understanding variations in diagnostic approach, risk tolerance and the perceived need to upgrade guidelines and where will help inform further development of novel TBI pathways.
objectivesThis study explored senior emergency physician perspectives regarding current clinical pathways and the potential use of clinical biomarkers as a rule-out test for intracranial pathology in head-injured patients.
methodThis descriptive qualitative design study uses data from 11 individual senior ED clinician interviews. Thematic analysis was then performed.
resultsThe three main themes identified were safe practice and clinical decision-making, resources and logistics and challenges of changing practice. While most clinicians reported easy access to CT head scans, most also reported that waiting for CTs was associated with delays. The majority believed that at least some patient groups were over-investigated in this context. Potential benefits of a rule-out biomarker were viewed positively. However, risk tolerance for missed findings was low, ranging from 0.2% to 1%-2%. A strong evidence base demonstrating a biomarker performed with this precision was viewed by most as essential prior to its use.
conclusionSenior ED physicians viewed the potential inclusion of biomarkers in CT head guidelines favorably, particularly concerning decision support in low-risk head injuries. However, the lack of expert consensus or strong evidence demonstrating high diagnostic precision in comparable emergency care models limits their introduction.
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.