Observational studyEmergency radiology2026
Shelf-inflicted head injuries.
Observational study in Emergency radiology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic yield of cranial computed tomography (CT) imaging in patients who sustained minor head trauma after directly hitting their head on a shelf or cupboard, without an associated fall. The study aimed to assess whether such low-impact mechanisms warrant cranial imaging.
methodsThis was a retrospective observational study conducted at the emergency department of a major trauma centre in the United Kingdom. Data were extracted from the institutional Radiology Information System and electronic health records, covering the period from June 2006 to April 2025. An initial cohort of 320 patients referred for CT head imaging was identified using a keyword-based search of radiology request histories. Of these, 109 patients were included based on a clearly documented mechanism of injury involving impact with a cupboard or shelf, without an associated fall. Exclusion criteria included alternative mechanisms such as falls, falling objects, assault, or irrelevant mentions. The primary outcome was the presence of acute intracranial pathology on CT head. Secondary data collected included age, sex, injury mechanism, clinical symptoms, adherence to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) head injury imaging criteria, and any scalp or skull findings.
resultsOf the 109 included patients, median age was 48 (31–66), females 76 (70%). Eight patients (7%) had scalp findings, including swelling or laceration. Despite the low-force mechanism, 79 patients (72%) met at least one NICE guideline criterion for imaging, most commonly due to vomiting or anticoagulant use. None demonstrated acute intracranial pathology or skull fracture on the CT head scan. The absence of positive findings suggests that careful vetting of NICE criteria in the context of biomechanically implausible mechanisms may reduce unnecessary imaging.
conclusionWalking into or standing up and hitting a shelf or cupboard is an insufficient force to generate clinically significant traumatic brain injury. Direct head impact from a fixed object, without an associated fall, appears to be a biomechanically low-risk mechanism. This study supports a more scrutinised and context-aware application of the NICE head injury criteria in such scenarios, to help rationalise imaging demand, optimise resource use, and reduce unnecessary exposure to ionising radiation.
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.