BACKGROUND: Clinical decision rules (CDRs) for paediatric head injury (HI) exist to identify children at risk of traumatic brain injury. Those of the highest quality are the Canadian assessment of tomography for childhood head injury (CATCH), Children's head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events (CHALICE) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) CDRs. They target different cohorts of children with HI and have not been compared in the same setting. We set out to quantify the proportion of children with HI to which each CDR was applicable. METHODS: Consecutive children presenting to an Australian paediatric Emergency Department with HIs were enrolled. Published inclusion/exclusion criteria and predictor variables from the CDRs were collected prospectively. Using these we determined the frequency with which each CDR was applicable. RESULTS: 1012 patients (69.9%) were enrolled with 949 available for analysis. Mean age was 6.8 years (21% <2 years). 95% had initial Glasgow Coma Scale 15. CT rate was 12.8% and neurosurgery rate was 0.7%. No CDR was applicable to all patients. CHALICE was applicable to the most (97%, 95% CI 96% to 98%) and CATCH to the fewest (26%, 95% CI 24% to 29%). PECARN was applicable to 76% (95% CI 70% to 82%) aged <2 years, and 74% (95% CI 71% to 77%) aged 2-<18 years. CONCLUSIONS: Each CDR is applicable to a different proportion of children with HI. This makes a direct comparison of the CDRs difficult. Prior to selection of any for implementation they should undergo validation outside the derivation setting coupled with an analysis of their performance accuracy, usability and cost effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision rules (CDRs) for paediatric head injury (HI) exist to identify children at risk of traumatic brain injury. Those of the highest quality are the Canadian assessment of tomography for childhood head injury (CATCH), Children's head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events (CHALICE) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) CDRs. They target different cohorts of children with HI and have not been compared in the same setting. We set out to quantify the proportion of children with HI to which each CDR was applicable. METHODS: Consecutive children presenting to an Australian paediatric Emergency Department with HIs were enrolled. Published inclusion/exclusion criteria and predictor variables from the CDRs were collected prospectively. Using these we determined the frequency with which each CDR was applicable. RESULTS: 1012 patients (69.9%) were enrolled with 949 available for analysis. Mean age was 6.8 years (21% <2 years). 95% had initial Glasgow Coma Scale 15. CT rate was 12.8% and neurosurgery rate was 0.7%. No CDR was applicable to all patients. CHALICE was applicable to the most (97%, 95% CI 96% to 98%) and CATCH to the fewest (26%, 95% CI 24% to 29%). PECARN was applicable to 76% (95% CI 70% to 82%) aged <2 years, and 74% (95% CI 71% to 77%) aged 2-<18 years. CONCLUSIONS: Each CDR is applicable to a different proportion of children with HI. This makes a direct comparison of the CDRs difficult. Prior to selection of any for implementation they should undergo validation outside the derivation setting coupled with an analysis of their performance accuracy, usability and cost effectiveness.
Authors: Joshua S Easter; Katherine Bakes; Jasmeet Dhaliwal; Michael Miller; Emily Caruso; Jason S Haukoos Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Franz E Babl; Mark D Lyttle; Silvia Bressan; Meredith Borland; Natalie Phillips; Amit Kochar; Stuart R Dalziel; Sarah Dalton; John A Cheek; Jeremy Furyk; Yuri Gilhotra; Jocelyn Neutze; Brenton Ward; Susan Donath; Kim Jachno; Louise Crowe; Amanda Williams; Ed Oakley Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Md Tauseef Khalid; Derrick W S Chan; Enrica E K Tan; Wan Tew Seow; Lee Ping Ng; David C Y Low; Sharon Y Y Low Journal: Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2019-05-28
Authors: A Kemp; E Nickerson; L Trefan; R Houston; P Hyde; G Pearson; R Edwards; R C Parslow; I Maconochie Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Johan Undén; Stuart R Dalziel; Meredith L Borland; Natalie Phillips; Amit Kochar; Mark D Lyttle; Silvia Bressan; John A Cheek; Jocelyn Neutze; Susan Donath; Stephen Hearps; Ed Oakley; Sarah Dalton; Yuri Gilhotra; Franz E Babl Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 8.775