ReviewJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
An Emergency Medicine Disposition Challenge: A Scoping Review of Isolated Transverse Process Fractures of the Cervical Spine.
Review in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 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
Objectives: Isolated cervical transverse process fractures (TPFs) are increasingly identified in trauma. Although generally considered stable and nonoperative, current guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations on when to pursue spine consultation or computed tomography angiography (CTA) to assess for blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI). This scoping review aimed to determine which clinical or radiographic features of isolated cervical TPFs have been used or reported in association with spine consultation and/or BCVI screening. Methods: A comprehensive search of 5 databases and gray literature was conducted. Eligible studies included outcomes related to spine stability or BCVI. Data extraction focused on spine consultation, imaging, fracture characteristics, management, and BCVI related outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-E tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. A narrative synthesis was performed due to heterogeneity. Results: Nine studies met inclusion criteria, comprising approximately 129 cases of isolated cervical TPFs. All fractures were managed nonoperatively, with variable collar usage. No studies explicitly reported rates of spinal instability or spine consultation. CTA use was variable, reflecting differences in imaging protocols. BCVI rates ranged from 0% to 23%, with multiple TPFs and fractures involving the transverse foramen (TF) being more frequent in cases positive for BCVI. Certainty of evidence for both outcomes was rated as very low due to methodological limitations and inconsistent reporting. Conclusion: Although there is insufficient evidence to make definitive recommendations on spine consultation or CTA for isolated cervical TPFs, available studies report exclusively nonoperative management without documented instability; however, the certainty of this evidence is very low. Multiple TPFs and fractures involving the TF were more frequently reported among BCVI cases, though findings were inconsistent. These findings suggest that emergency physicians should consider CTA in cases of multiple TPFs or TF involvement, while routine spine consultation for lesser injuries may be unnecessary; however, given the very low certainty of available evidence and medicolegal considerations surrounding spinal fractures, future prospective research is needed to support evidence-based guidelines and impact clinical practice.
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.