Should suspected cervical spinal cord injuries be immobilised? A systematic review protocol
Abstract
Background: Cervical spinal cord injuries may result in life-threatening situations and long-term disability. Prehospital spinal immobilisation is the standard of care for patients with potential spinal cord injury (SCI). It aims to prepare patients for transport, achieve neutral spinal alignment, and reduce movement and secondary injuries in potentially unstable spines. However, there is a lack of evidence on its clinical benefits and its overall effect on patient outcomes. Objectives: To identify the reported outcomes following immobilisation of suspected cervical SCI, to compare the effects of spinal immobilisation versus no immobilisation on the reported outcomes, and to provide recommendations for prehospital cervical immobilisation. Design/methods: A search of the literature will be conducted using relevant online databases. This will include all types of human studies that were published in English from the earliest record available to the first week of October 2013. One author will conduct the search and two independent authors will screen the titles and the abstracts identified by the search and critically appraise the selected papers. A third author will be available to resolve any disagreement. The findings will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. Critical appraisal as well as the level and the strength of evidence will follow the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines. Discussion: Evidence-based practices should be pursued to further improve the prehospital care for suspected cervical SCI. This systematic review will contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the spinal immobilisation effects on the SCI patient's outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is very limited published evidence to support the notion that cervical spine collars and immobilization prevent secondary spinal cord injury.
“there is very limited published evidence to support the notion that cervical spine collars and immobilization prevent secondary spinal cord injury.28,29”
From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [29]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kovacs, G., & Sowers, N. (2018) · Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.emc.2017.08.006 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
- Authors
- Oteir, A. O., Jennings, P. A., Smith, K., & Stoelwinder, J.
- Affiliations
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Ambulance Victoria (AU)
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Monash University (AU)
- Venue
- Injury Prevention
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2013-12-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e5-e5
- ISSN
- 1353-8047 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-5785
- OpenAlex
- W2043491455
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Injury Prevention (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
- Keywords
- cervical spinal cord injury, spinal immobilization, prehospital care, emergency medical services, patient outcomes, spinal injuries, secondary injury, spinal alignment
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Decision Making, Humans, Immobilization, Prognosis, Quality of Life, Spinal Cord Injuries, Spinal Fusion, Time Factors, Evidence-Based Emergency Medicine
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