BACKGROUND: Head CT scans are considered the imaging modality of choice to screen patients with head trauma for neurocranial injuries; however, widespread CT imaging is not recommended and much research has been conducted to establish objective clinical predictors of intracranial injury (ICI) in order to optimize the use of neuroimaging in children with minor head trauma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a strict application of the New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) in pediatric patients with head trauma presenting to a non-trauma center (level II) could reduce the number of cranial CT scans performed without missing clinically significant ICI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an IRB-approved retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with head trauma who received a cranial CT scan between Jan. 1, 2001, and Sept. 1, 2008, and identified which patients would have required a scan based on the criteria of the above listed decision instruments. We then determined the sensitivities, specificities and negative predictive values of these aids. RESULTS: In our cohort of 2,101 patients, 92 (4.4%) had positive head CT findings. The sensitivities for the NOC, CCHR and NEXUS II were 96.7% (95%CI 93.1-100), 65.2% (95%CI 55.5-74.9) and 78.3% (95%CI 69.9-86.7), respectively, and their negative predictive values were 98.7%, 97.6% and 97.2%, respectively. In contrast, the specificities for these aids were 11.2% (95%CI 9.8-12.6), 64.2% (95%CI 62.1-66.3) and 34.2% (95%CI 32.1-36.3), respectively. Therefore, in our population it would have been possible to scan at least 10.9% fewer patients. CONCLUSIONS: The number of cranial CT scans conducted in our pediatric cohort with head trauma would have been reduced had any of the three clinical decision aids been applied. Therefore, we recommend that further validation and adoption of pediatric head CT decision aids in non-trauma centers be considered to ultimately increase patient safety while reducing medical expense.
BACKGROUND: Head CT scans are considered the imaging modality of choice to screen patients with head trauma for neurocranial injuries; however, widespread CT imaging is not recommended and much research has been conducted to establish objective clinical predictors of intracranial injury (ICI) in order to optimize the use of neuroimaging in children with minor head trauma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a strict application of the New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) in pediatric patients with head trauma presenting to a non-trauma center (level II) could reduce the number of cranial CT scans performed without missing clinically significant ICI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an IRB-approved retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with head trauma who received a cranial CT scan between Jan. 1, 2001, and Sept. 1, 2008, and identified which patients would have required a scan based on the criteria of the above listed decision instruments. We then determined the sensitivities, specificities and negative predictive values of these aids. RESULTS: In our cohort of 2,101 patients, 92 (4.4%) had positive head CT findings. The sensitivities for the NOC, CCHR and NEXUS II were 96.7% (95%CI 93.1-100), 65.2% (95%CI 55.5-74.9) and 78.3% (95%CI 69.9-86.7), respectively, and their negative predictive values were 98.7%, 97.6% and 97.2%, respectively. In contrast, the specificities for these aids were 11.2% (95%CI 9.8-12.6), 64.2% (95%CI 62.1-66.3) and 34.2% (95%CI 32.1-36.3), respectively. Therefore, in our population it would have been possible to scan at least 10.9% fewer patients. CONCLUSIONS: The number of cranial CT scans conducted in our pediatric cohort with head trauma would have been reduced had any of the three clinical decision aids been applied. Therefore, we recommend that further validation and adoption of pediatric head CT decision aids in non-trauma centers be considered to ultimately increase patient safety while reducing medical expense.
Authors: Andy S Jagoda; Stephen V Cantrill; Robert L Wears; Alex Valadka; E John Gallagher; Steven H Gottesfeld; Michael P Pietrzak; Jason Bolden; John J Bruns; Robert Zimmerman Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Marion Smits; Diederik W J Dippel; Gijs G de Haan; Heleen M Dekker; Pieter E Vos; Digna R Kool; Paul J Nederkoorn; Paul A M Hofman; Albert Twijnstra; Hervé L J Tanghe; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-09-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Charles D Blackwell; Marc Gorelick; James F Holmes; Subhankar Bandyopadhyay; Nathan Kuppermann Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Martin H Osmond; Terry P Klassen; George A Wells; Rhonda Correll; Anna Jarvis; Gary Joubert; Benoit Bailey; Laurel Chauvin-Kimoff; Martin Pusic; Don McConnell; Cheri Nijssen-Jordan; Norm Silver; Brett Taylor; Ian G Stiell Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: D H Livingston; R F Lavery; M R Passannante; J H Skurnick; S Baker; T C Fabian; D E Fry; M A Malangoni Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Uzma Samadani; Robert Ritlop; Marleen Reyes; Elena Nehrbass; Meng Li; Elizabeth Lamm; Julia Schneider; David Shimunov; Maria Sava; Radek Kolecki; Paige Burris; Lindsey Altomare; Talha Mehmood; Theodore Smith; Jason H Huang; Christopher McStay; S Rob Todd; Meng Qian; Douglas Kondziolka; Stephen Wall; Paul Huang Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Michael Amoo; Jack Henry; Philip J O'Halloran; Paul Brennan; Mohammed Ben Husien; Matthew Campbell; John Caird; Mohsen Javadpour; Gerard F Curley Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Richa Sharma; Alexandra Rosenberg; Ellen R Bennett; Daniel T Laskowitz; Shawn K Acheson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240