Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,321

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of a Set of Clinical Criteria to Rule Out Injury to the Cervical Spine in Patients with Blunt Trauma

Hoffman, Jerome R., Mower, William R., Wolfson, Allan B., Todd, Knox H., Zucker, Michael I.·2000·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because clinicians fear missing occult cervical-spine injuries, they obtain cervical radiographs for nearly all patients who present with blunt trauma. Previous research suggests that a set of clinical criteria (decision instrument) can identify patients who have an extremely low probability of injury and who consequently have no need for imaging studies. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of such a decision instrument at 21 centers across the United States. The decision instrument required patients to meet five criteria in order to be classified as having a low probability of injury: no midline cervical tenderness, no focal neurologic deficit, normal alertness, no intoxication, and no painful, distracting injury. We examined the performance of the decision rule in 34,069 patients who underwent radiography of the cervical spine after blunt trauma. RESULTS: The decision instrument identified all but 8 of the 818 patients who had cervical-spine injury (sensitivity, 99.0 percent [95 percent confidence interval, 98.0 to 99.6 percent]). The negative predictive value was 99.8 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 99.6 to 100 percent), the specificity was 12.9 percent, and the positive predictive value was 2.7 percent. Only two of the patients classified as unlikely to have an injury according to the decision instrument met the preset definition of a clinically significant injury (sensitivity, 99.6 percent [95 percent confidence interval, 98.6 to 100 percent]; negative predictive value, 99.9 percent [95 percent confidence interval, 99.8 to 100 percent]; specificity, 12.9 percent; positive predictive value, 1.9 percent), and only one of these two patients received surgical treatment. According to the results of assessment with the decision instrument, radiographic imaging could have been avoided in the cases of 4309 (12.6 percent) of the 34,069 evaluated patients. CONCLUSIONS: A simple decision instrument based on clinical criteria can help physicians to identify reliably the patients who need radiography of the cervical spine after blunt trauma. Application of this instrument could reduce the use of imaging in such patients.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm200007133430203

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,321

Metadata

Authors
Hoffman, J. R., Mower, W. R., Wolfson, A. B., Todd, K. H., & Zucker, M. I.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2000-07-13
Volume
343
Issue
2
Pages
94-99
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2120736533
Cited by
1,321
References
2
FWCI
46.82
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: Validity of a Set of Clinical Criteria to Rule Out Injury to the Cervical Spine in Patients with Blunt Trauma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200007133430203
The paper
Hoffman, J. R., Mower, W. R., Wolfson, A. B., Todd, K. H., & Zucker, M. I. (2000). Validity of a Set of Clinical Criteria to Rule Out Injury to the Cervical Spine in Patients with Blunt Trauma. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200007133430203

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.