Dataset Information

Assessment of cervical spine CT scans by emergency physicians: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study in a non-clinical setting.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of assessing injuries on cervical spine computed tomography (CT) scans by trained emergency physicians and radiologists, both in a non-clinical setting.

Methods

In this comparative diagnostic accuracy study, 411 cervical spine CT scans, of which 120 contained injuries (fractures and/or dislocations), were divided into 8 subsets. Eight emergency physicians received focused training and assessed 1 subset each before and after training. Four radiologists assessed 2 subsets each. Diagnostic accuracy between both groups was compared. The reference standard used was a multiverified data set, assessed by radiologists, neurosurgeons, and emergency physicians. The neurosurgeons also classified whether an "injury in need of stabilizing therapy" (IST) was present.

Results

Posttraining, the emergency physicians demonstrated increased sensitivity and specificity for identifying cervical spine injuries compared to pretraining: sensitivity 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80% to 93%) versus 80% (95% CI 72% to 87%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85% to 93%) versus 86% (95% CI 81% to 89%). When comparing the trained emergency physicians to the group of radiologists, no difference in sensitivity was found, 88% (95% CI 80% to 83%); however, the radiologists showed a significantly higher specificity (P < 0.01): 99% (95% CI 96% to 100%). In the 12% (15 scans) with missed injuries, emergency physicians missed more ISTs than radiologists, 6 versus 4 scans; however, this difference was not significant (P = 0.45).

Conclusion

After focused training and in a non-clinical setting, no significant difference was found between emergency physicians and radiologists in ruling out cervical spine injuries; however, the radiologists achieved a significantly higher specificity.

SUBMITTER: van der Kolk BBYM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8776040 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectiveDuring the first phase of the Fundus Photography vs Ophthalmoscopy Trial Outcomes in the Emergency Department study, 13% (44/350; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9% to 17%) of patients had an ocular fundus finding, such as papilledema, relevant to their emergency department (ED) management found by nonmydriatic ocular fundus photography reviewed by neuro-ophthalmologists. All of these findings were missed by emergency physicians, who examined only 14% of enrolled patients by direct ophthalmoscopy. In the present study, we evaluate the sensitivity of nonmydriatic ocular fundus photography, an alternative to direct ophthalmoscopy, for relevant findings when photographs are made available for use by emergency physicians during routine clinical care.MethodsThree hundred fifty-four patients presenting to our ED with headache, focal neurologic deficit, visual change, or diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 120 mm Hg had nonmydriatic fundus photography obtained (Kowa nonmydriatic α-D). Photographs were placed on the electronic medical record for emergency physician review. Identification of relevant findings on photographs by emergency physicians was compared with a reference standard of neuro-ophthalmologist review.ResultsEmergency physicians reviewed photographs of 239 patients (68%). Thirty-five patients (10%; 95% CI 7% to 13%) had relevant findings identified by neuro-ophthalmologist review (6 disc edema, 6 grade III/IV hypertensive retinopathy, 7 isolated hemorrhages, 15 optic disc pallor, and 1 retinal vascular occlusion). Emergency physicians identified 16 of 35 relevant findings (sensitivity 46%; 95% CI 29% to 63%) and also identified 289 of 319 normal findings (specificity 91%; 95% CI 87% to 94%). Emergency physicians reported that photographs were helpful for 125 patients (35%).ConclusionEmergency physicians used nonmydriatic fundus photographs more frequently than they performed direct ophthalmoscopy, and their detection of relevant abnormalities improved. Ocular fundus photography often assisted ED care even when results were normal. Nonmydriatic ocular fundus photography offers a promising alternative to direct ophthalmoscopy.