ReviewOrthopedic research and reviews2026
Cervical Collar in Adult Trauma: Evidence, Controversies, and Clinical Decision-Making.
Review in Orthopedic research and reviews, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical collars have traditionally been applied routinely in adult trauma to reduce the risk of secondary cervical spinal cord injury. Increasing evidence, however, supports selective spinal motion restriction and earlier collar removal when instability has been adequately excluded. This narrative review evaluates current evidence on collar application, avoidance, clearance, and continued use after confirmed cervical fracture. A structured literature search was conducted across major biomedical databases and guideline sources, with the synthesis guided by the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles. In blunt trauma, collar use should be based on clinical risk, examination reliability, mechanism of injury, and phase of care. Routine collaring is generally unsupported in isolated penetrating trauma and may delay time-critical management. In evaluable patients, validated decision rules and high-quality computed tomography (CT) support early clearance when appropriate. In adults with impaired consciousness, collar removal after a negative high-quality CT should be individualized according to neurological findings, clinical context, examination reliability, institutional protocols, and the presence or absence of radio-clinical discrepancy. After fracture confirmation, continued collar use should be individualized according to stability, frailty, treatment goals, and tolerance. Collar-related harms should be incorporated into repeated reassessment. The proposed Four-Domain Trauma Collar Framework organizes these decisions across application, clearance, continuation, and de-escalation but remains a conceptual, unvalidated model.
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.