Dataset Information

Accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and NEXUS to screen for clinically important cervical spine injury in patients following blunt trauma: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is uncertainty about the optimal approach to screen for clinically important cervical spine (C-spine) injury following blunt trauma. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria, 2 rules that are available to assist emergency physicians to assess the need for cervical spine imaging.

Methods

We identified studies by an electronic search of CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. We included articles that reported on a cohort of patients who experienced blunt trauma and for whom clinically important cervical spine injury detectable by diagnostic imaging was the differential diagnosis; evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule or NEXUS or both; and used an adequate reference standard. We assessed the methodologic quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. We used the extracted data to calculate sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and post-test probabilities.

Results

We included 15 studies of modest methodologic quality. For the Canadian C-spine rule, sensitivity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 and specificity ranged from 0.01 to 0.77. For NEXUS, sensitivity ranged from 0.83 to 1.00 and specificity ranged from 0.02 to 0.46. One study directly compared the accuracy of these 2 rules using the same cohort and found that the Canadian C-spine rule had better accuracy. For both rules, a negative test was more informative for reducing the probability of a clinically important cervical spine injury.

Interpretation

Based on studies with modest methodologic quality and only one direct comparison, we found that the Canadian C-spine rule appears to have better diagnostic accuracy than the NEXUS criteria. Future studies need to follow rigorous methodologic procedures to ensure that the findings are as free of bias as possible.

SUBMITTER: Michaleff ZA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3494329 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and NEXUS to screen for clinically important cervical spine injury in patients following blunt trauma: a systematic review.

Michaleff Zoe A ZA Maher Chris G CG Verhagen Arianne P AP Rebbeck Trudy T Lin Chung-Wei Christine CW

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20121009 16

<h4>Background</h4>There is uncertainty about the optimal approach to screen for clinically important cervical spine (C-spine) injury following blunt trauma. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria, 2 rules that are available to assist emergency physicians to assess the need for cervical spine imaging.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified studies by an electronic searc ...[more]

PMID: 23048086

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Delayed diagnoses of unstable thoracolumbar spine (TL-spine) fractures can result in neurologic deficits and avoidable pain, so it is important for clinicians to reach prompt diagnostic decisions. There are no validated decision aids for determining which trauma patients warrant TL-spine imaging. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the injury mechanism, physical examination, associated injuries, clinical decision aids, and imaging for evaluating blunt TL-spine trauma patients. METHODS:A search strategy for studies including adult blunt TL-spine trauma using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Excluded studies lacked data to construct 2 × 2 tables, were duplicates, were not primary research, did not focus on blunt trauma, examined associated injuries without any utility in identifying TL-spine injuries, only studied cervical-spine fractures, were non-English, had a pediatric setting, or were cadaver/autopsy reports. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Diagnostic predictors were analyzed with a meta-analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS:In blunt trauma patients in the emergency department, the weighted pretest probability of a TL-spine fracture was 15%. The estimates for detection of TL-spine fractures with plain film were: positive likelihood ratio (+LR) = 25.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-152.2; I2 = 94%; p < 0.001) and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) = 0.43 (95% CI 0.32-0.59; I2 = 84%; p < 0.001), and for computed tomography (CT) were: +LR = 81.1 (95% CI 14.1-467.9; I2 = 87%; p < 0.001) and -LR = 0.04 (95% CI 0.02-0.08; I2 = 23%; p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS:CT is more accurate than plain films for detecting TL-spine fractures. Injury mechanism, physical examination, and associated injuries alone are not accurate to rule-in or rule-out TL-spine fractures.

Project description:BackgroundUnnecessary diagnostic imaging leads to higher costs, longer emergency department stays, and increased patient exposure to ionizing radiation. We sought to prospectively derive and validate two decision instruments (DIs) for selective chest computed tomography (CT) in adult blunt trauma patients.Methods and findingsFrom September 2011 to May 2014, we prospectively enrolled blunt trauma patients over 14 y of age presenting to eight US, urban level 1 trauma centers in this observational study. During the derivation phase, physicians recorded the presence or absence of 14 clinical criteria before viewing chest imaging results. We determined injury outcomes by CT radiology readings and categorized injuries as major or minor according to an expert-panel-derived clinical classification scheme. We then employed recursive partitioning to derive two DIs: Chest CT-All maximized sensitivity for all injuries, and Chest CT-Major maximized sensitivity for only major thoracic injuries (while increasing specificity). In the validation phase, we employed similar methodology to prospectively test the performance of both DIs. We enrolled 11,477 patients-6,002 patients in the derivation phase and 5,475 patients in the validation phase. The derived Chest CT-All DI consisted of (1) abnormal chest X-ray, (2) rapid deceleration mechanism, (3) distracting injury, (4) chest wall tenderness, (5) sternal tenderness, (6) thoracic spine tenderness, and (7) scapular tenderness. The Chest CT-Major DI had the same criteria without rapid deceleration mechanism. In the validation phase, Chest CT-All had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%-100%), a specificity of 20.8% (95% CI 19.2%-22.4%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (95% CI 98.9%-100%) for major injury, and a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 93.6%-96.9%), a specificity of 25.5% (95% CI 23.5%-27.5%), and a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.5%-95.8%) for either major or minor injury. Chest CT-Major had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%-100%), a specificity of 31.7% (95% CI 29.9%-33.5%), and a NPV of 99.9% (95% CI 99.3%-100%) for major injury and a sensitivity of 90.7% (95% CI 88.3%-92.8%), a specificity of 37.9% (95% CI 35.8%-40.1%), and a NPV of 91.8% (95% CI 89.7%-93.6%) for either major or minor injury. Regarding the limitations of our work, some clinicians may disagree with our injury classification and sensitivity thresholds for injury detection.ConclusionsWe prospectively derived and validated two DIs (Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major) that identify blunt trauma patients with clinically significant thoracic injuries with high sensitivity, allowing for a safe reduction of approximately 25%-37% of unnecessary chest CTs. Trauma evaluation protocols that incorporate these DIs may decrease unnecessary costs and radiation exposure in the disproportionately young trauma population.

Project description:IntroductionThe diagnosis of cardiac contusion, caused by blunt chest trauma, remains a challenge due to the non-specific symptoms it causes and the lack of ideal tests to diagnose myocardial damage. A cardiac contusion can be life-threatening if not diagnosed and treated promptly. Several diagnostic tests have been used to evaluate the risk of cardiac complications, but the challenge of identifying patients with contusions nevertheless remains.Aim of the studyTo evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic tests for detecting blunt cardiac injury (BCI) and its complications, in patients with severe chest injuries, who are assessed in an emergency department or by any front-line emergency physician.MethodsA targeted search strategy was performed using Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases from 1993 up to October 2022. Data on at least one of the following diagnostic tests: electrocardiogram (ECG), serum creatinine phosphokinase-MB level (CPK-MB), echocardiography (Echo), Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) or Cardiac troponin T (cTnT). Diagnostic tests for cardiac contusion were evaluated for their accuracy in meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess bias of the studies.ResultsThis systematic review yielded 51 studies (n = 5,359). The weighted mean incidence of myocardial injuries after sustaining a blunt force trauma stood at 18.3% of cases. Overall weighted mean mortality among patients with blunt cardiac injury was 7.6% (1.4-36.4%). Initial ECG, cTnI, cTnT and transthoracic echocardiography TTE all showed high specificity (> 80%), but lower sensitivity (< 70%). TEE had a specificity of 72.1% (range 35.8-98.2%) and sensitivity of 86.7% (range 40-99.2%) in diagnosing cardiac contusion. CK-MB had the lowest diagnostic odds ratio of 3.598 (95% CI: 1.832-7.068). Normal ECG accompanied by normal cTnI showed a high sensitivity of 85% in ruling out cardiac injuries.ConclusionEmergency physicians face great challenges in diagnosing cardiac injuries in patients following blunt trauma. In the majority of cases, joint use of ECG and cTnI was a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to rule out cardiac injuries. In addition, TEE may be highly accurate in identifying cardiac injuries in suspected cases.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Each year, half a million patients with a potential neck (c-spine) injury are transported to Ontario emergency departments (EDs). Less than 1.0% (1/100) of these patients have a neck bone fracture. Even less (1/200, 0.5%) have a spinal cord injury or nerve damage. Currently, paramedics transport all trauma victims (with or without an injury) by ambulance using a backboard, cervical collar, and head immobilizers. Importantly, prolonged immobilization is often unnecessary; it causes patient discomfort and pain, decreases community access to paramedics, contributes to ED crowding, and is very costly. We therefore developed the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) for alert and stable trauma patients. This decision rule helps ED physicians and triage nurses to safely and selectively remove immobilization, without x-rays and missed injury. We successfully taught Ottawa paramedics to use the CCR in the field in a single-center study. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to improve patient care and health system efficiency and outcomes by allowing paramedics to assess eligible low-risk trauma patients with the CCR and selectively transport them without immobilization to the ED. METHODS:We propose a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized design with health economic evaluation, designed collaboratively with knowledge users. Our 36-month study will consist of a 12-month setup and training period (year 1), followed by the stepped-wedge trial (year 2) and a 12-month period for study completion, analyses, and knowledge translation. A total of 12 Ontario paramedic services of various sizes distributed across the province will be randomly allocated to one of three sequences. Paramedic services in each sequence will cross from the control condition (usual care) to the intervention condition (CCR implementation) at intervals of 3 months until all communities have crossed to the intervention. Data will be collected on all eligible patients in each paramedic service for a total duration of 12 months. A major strength of our design is that each community will have implemented the CCR by the end of the study. RESULTS:Interim results are expected in December 2019 and final results in 2020. If this multicenter trial is successful, we expect the Ontario Ministry of Health will recommend that paramedics evaluate all eligible patients with the CCR in the Province of Ontario. CONCLUSIONS:We conservatively estimate that in Ontario, more than 60% of all eligible trauma patients (300,000 annually) could be transported safely and comfortably, without c-spine immobilization devices. This will significantly reduce patient pain and discomfort, paramedic intervention times, and ED length of stay, thereby improving access to paramedics and ED care. This could be achieved rapidly and with lower health care costs compared with current practices (possible cost saving of Can $36 [US $25] per immobilization or Can $10,656,000 [US $7,335,231] per year). TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02786966; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02786966. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/16966.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and NEXUS to screen for clinically important cervical spine injury in patients following blunt trauma: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and NEXUS to screen for clinically important cervical spine injury in patients following blunt trauma: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets