The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Canadian C-Spine Rule for Radiography in Alert and Stable Trauma Patients
Abstract
CONTEXT: High levels of variation and inefficiency exist in current clinical practice regarding use of cervical spine (C-spine) radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. OBJECTIVE: To derive a clinical decision rule that is highly sensitive for detecting acute C-spine injury and will allow emergency department (ED) physicians to be more selective in use of radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study conducted from October 1996 to April 1999, in which physicians evaluated patients for 20 standardized clinical findings prior to radiography. In some cases, a second physician performed independent interobserver assessments. SETTING: Ten EDs in large Canadian community and university hospitals. PATIENTS: Convenience sample of 8924 adults (mean age, 37 years) who presented to the ED with blunt trauma to the head/neck, stable vital signs, and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Clinically important C-spine injury, evaluated by plain radiography, computed tomography, and a structured follow-up telephone interview. The clinical decision rule was derived using the kappa coefficient, logistic regression analysis, and chi(2) recursive partitioning techniques. RESULTS: Among the study sample, 151 (1.7%) had important C-spine injury. The resultant model and final Canadian C-Spine Rule comprises 3 main questions: (1) is there any high-risk factor present that mandates radiography (ie, age >/=65 years, dangerous mechanism, or paresthesias in extremities)? (2) is there any low-risk factor present that allows safe assessment of range of motion (ie, simple rear-end motor vehicle collision, sitting position in ED, ambulatory at any time since injury, delayed onset of neck pain, or absence of midline C-spine tenderness)? and (3) is the patient able to actively rotate neck 45 degrees to the left and right? By cross-validation, this rule had 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 98%-100%) and 42.5% specificity (95% CI, 40%-44%) for identifying 151 clinically important C-spine injuries. The potential radiography ordering rate would be 58.2%. CONCLUSION: We have derived the Canadian C-Spine Rule, a highly sensitive decision rule for use of C-spine radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. If prospectively validated in other cohorts, this rule has the potential to significantly reduce practice variation and inefficiency in ED use of C-spine radiography.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 · Cited by 21,230
The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans
Efron, B. (1982) · Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970319 · Cited by 8,120
The Jackknife: The Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans.
Low, L. Y., & Efron, B. (1983) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288218 · Cited by 2,702
Clinical Prediction Rules: Applications and Methodological Standards
Wasson, J. H., Sox, H. C., Neff, R. K., & Goldman, L. (1985) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198509263131306 · Cited by 1,357
Hoffman, J. R., Mower, W. R., Wolfson, A. B., Todd, K. H., & Zucker, M. I. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200007133430203 · Cited by 1,321
Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide
(1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-117-8-703_2 · Cited by 1,111
Clinical biostatistics: LIV. The biostatistics of concordance
Kramer, M. S., & Feinstein, A. R. (1981) · Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics · doi:10.1038/clpt.1981.18 · Cited by 1,087
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXII: How to Use Articles About Clinical Decision Rules
McGinn, T. G., Guyatt, G. H., Wyer, P. C., Naylor, C. D., Stiell, I. G., Richardson, W. S., & for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.284.1.79 · Cited by 1,014
Self-citation
Cited by
Blanpied, P. R., Gross, A. R., Elliott, J. M., Devaney, L. L., Clewley, D., Walton, D. M., Sparks, C., & Robertson, E. K. (2017) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0302 · Cited by 979
Reilly, B. M., & Evans, A. T. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00009 · Cited by 794
Childs, J. D., Fritz, J. M., Flynn, T. W., Irrgang, J. J., Johnson, K. K., Majkowski, G. R., & Delitto, A. (2004) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-12-200412210-00008 · Cited by 801
Validation, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: A review
Toll, D. B., Janssen, K. J. M., Vergouwe, Y., & Moons, K. G. M. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.008 · Cited by 580
Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes
Quinn, J. V., Stiell, I. G., McDermott, D. A., Sellers, K. L., Kohn, M. A., & Wells, G. A. (2004) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0196-0644(03)00823-0 · Cited by 432
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stiell, I. G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2001-10-17
- Volume
- 286
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1841
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2152956618
- Cited by
- 1,296
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 28.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Canadian C-Spine Rule for Radiography in Alert and Stable Trauma Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.286.15.1841
- The paper
- Stiell, I. G. (2001). The Canadian C-Spine Rule for Radiography in Alert and Stable Trauma Patients. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.15.1841
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.