The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
External Validation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for CT Scanning in Patients With Minor Head Injury
Abstract
CONTEXT: Two decision rules for indications of computed tomography (CT) in patients with minor head injury, the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) and the New Orleans Criteria (NOC), suggest that CT scanning may be restricted to patients with certain risk factors, which would lead to important reductions in the use of CT scans. OBJECTIVE: To validate and compare these 2 published decision rules in Dutch patients with head injuries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective multicenter study conducted between February 11, 2002, and August 31, 2004, in 4 university hospitals in the Netherlands of 3181 consecutive adult patients with minor head injury who presented with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 to 14 or with a GCS score of 15 and at least 1 risk factor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was any neurocranial traumatic finding on CT scan. Secondary outcomes were neurosurgical intervention and clinically important CT findings. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated for each outcome for the CCHR and the NOC, using both rules as originally derived and also as adapted to apply to an expanded patient population. RESULTS: Of 3181 patients with a GCS score of 13 to 15, neurosurgical intervention was performed in 17 patients (0.5%); neurocranial traumatic CT findings were present in 312 patients (9.8%). Sensitivity for neurosurgical intervention was 100% for both the CCHR and the NOC. The NOC had a higher sensitivity for neurocranial traumatic findings and for clinically important findings (97.7%-99.4%) than did the CCHR (83.4%-87.2%). Specificities were very low for the NOC (3.0%-5.6%) and higher for the CCHR (37.2%-39.7%). The estimated potential reduction in CT scans for patients with minor head injury would be 3.0% for the adapted NOC and 37.3% for the adapted CCHR. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with minor head injury and a GCS score of 13 to 15, the CCHR has a lower sensitivity than the NOC for neurocranial traumatic or clinically important CT findings, but would identify all cases requiring neurosurgical intervention, and has greater potential for reducing the use of CT scans.
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
Vergouwe, Y., Steyerberg, E. W., Eijkemans, M. J. C., & Habbema, J. D. F. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.017 · Cited by 636
Cited by
Diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical management of mild traumatic brain injury
Levin, H. S., & Diaz-Arrastia, R. R. (2015) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00002-2 · Cited by 535
Ropper, A. H., & Gorson, K. C. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp064645 · Cited by 215
ACR Appropriateness Criteria Head Trauma
Shetty, V. S., Reis, M. N., Aulino, J. M., Berger, K. L., Broder, J., Choudhri, A. F., Kendi, A. T., Kessler, M. M., Kirsch, C. F., Luttrull, M. D., et al. (2016) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2016.02.023 · Cited by 127
Khalifa, M., Magrabi, F., & Gallego Luxan, B. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/15770 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Smits, M.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2005-09-28
- Volume
- 294
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1519
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2120670202
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.60
- 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
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.