ArticleCureus2026
Rethinking Head Computed Tomography (CT) in the Emergency Department: From Reflex Imaging to Reasoned Care.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Head computed tomography (CT) is among the most frequently ordered tests in emergency care, yet its use for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) remains highly variable. Contemporary practice patterns reflect this: head CT is obtained in >80% of emergency department (ED) evaluations for suspected mTBI, and in older adults presenting after a fall, approximately half undergo cranial CT in routine practice (49% in a UK ED cohort aged ≥65 years). Ageing societies bring more older fallers to the ED, often with incomplete histories and widespread use of anticoagulants or antiplatelets. These realities lower imaging thresholds and can turn CT into a default substitute for clinical reasoning. This editorial argues for a reframing: head CT should be positioned as a decision-support tool within a broader diagnostic strategy, not as the endpoint of thinking. We highlight recurrent pitfalls: misunderstanding what decision rules, such as the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), are designed to predict; applying CCHR outside its intended population; equating "any radiographic abnormality" with clinically important injury; and underestimating the diagnostic and therapeutic value of time, serial neurologic assessment, and high-quality discharge planning. Integrating evidence from decision rules, observational data in older fallers, and qualitative research on physician decision-making, we propose a practical approach: align imaging with the outcome of interest, respect rule assumptions and exclusions, and deliberately "use time" when immediate imaging is unlikely to change management. Ultimately, reducing unnecessary CT is not merely an educational problem; it requires a sustainable clinical ecosystem that supports judgment under uncertainty.
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.