External validation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury

被引:252
作者
Smits, M
Dippel, DWJ
de Haan, GG
Dekker, HM
Vos, PE
Kool, DR
Nederkoorn, PJ
Hofman, PAM
Twijnstra, A
Tanghe, HLJ
Hunink, MGM
机构
[1] Erasmus MC Univ Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Erasmus MC Univ Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Erasmus MC Univ Med Ctr, Dept Med Informat, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
[4] Erasmus MC Univ Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
[5] Univ Med Ctr Nijmegen St Radboud, Dept Radiol, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[6] Univ Med Ctr Nijmegen St Radboud, Dept Neurol, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[7] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[8] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[9] Univ Hosp Maastricht, Dept Radiol, Maastricht, Netherlands
[10] Univ Hosp Maastricht, Dept Neurol, Maastricht, Netherlands
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 2005年 / 294卷 / 12期
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.294.12.1519
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1519 / 1525
页数:7
相关论文
共 18 条
[2]   Diagnostic procedures in mild traumatic brain injury: Results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury [J].
Borg, J ;
Holm, L ;
Cassidy, JD ;
Peloso, PM ;
Carroll, LJ ;
von Holst, H ;
Ericson, K .
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2004, 36 :61-75
[3]   Methodological issues and research recommendations for mild traumatic brain injury: The WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury [J].
Carroll, LJ ;
Cassidy, JD ;
Holm, L ;
Kraus, J ;
Coronado, VG .
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2004, 36 :113-125
[4]   Incidence, risk factors and prevention of mild traumatic brain injury: Results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury [J].
Cassidy, JD ;
Carroll, LJ ;
Peloso, PM ;
Borg, J ;
von Holst, H ;
Holm, L ;
Kraus, J ;
Coronado, VG .
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2004, 36 :28-60
[5]   Prospective validation of a proposal for diagnosis and management of patients attending the emergency department for mild head injury [J].
Fabbri, A ;
Servadei, F ;
Marchesini, G ;
Morselli-Labate, AM ;
Dente, M ;
Iervese, T ;
Spada, M ;
Vandelli, A .
JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2004, 75 (03) :410-416
[6]   Mild head injury - mortality and complication rate: meta-analysis of findings in a systematic literature review [J].
Geijerstam, JLA ;
Britton, M .
ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2003, 145 (10) :843-850
[7]   Emergency physicians' attitudes toward and use of clinical decision rules for radiography [J].
Graham, ID ;
Stiell, IG ;
Laupacis, A ;
O'Connor, AM ;
Wells, GA .
ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1998, 5 (02) :134-140
[8]   Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. [J].
Haydel, MJ ;
Preston, CA ;
Mills, TJ ;
Luber, S ;
Blaudeau, E ;
DeBlieux, PMC .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 343 (02) :100-105
[9]   Value of radiological diagnosis of skull fracture in the management of mild head injury: meta-analysis [J].
Hofman, PAM ;
Nelemans, P ;
Kemerink, GJ ;
Wilmink, JT .
JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2000, 68 (04) :416-422
[10]   Decision making in the face of uncertainty and resource constraints: Examples from trauma Imaging [J].
Hunink, MGM .
RADIOLOGY, 2005, 235 (02) :375-383