Cargando…

External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Three university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Foks, Kelly A, van den Brand, Crispijn L, Lingsma, Hester F, van der Naalt, Joukje, Jacobs, Bram, de Jong, Eline, den Boogert, Hugo F, Sir, Özcan, Patka, Peter, Polinder, Suzanne, Gaakeer, Menno I, Schutte, Charlotte E, Jie, Kim E, Visee, Huib F, Hunink, Myriam G M, Reijners, Eef, Braaksma, Meriam, Schoonman, Guus G, Steyerberg, Ewout W, Jellema, Korné, Dippel, Diederik W J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6108278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30143521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3527
_version_ 1783350121841295360
author Foks, Kelly A
van den Brand, Crispijn L
Lingsma, Hester F
van der Naalt, Joukje
Jacobs, Bram
de Jong, Eline
den Boogert, Hugo F
Sir, Özcan
Patka, Peter
Polinder, Suzanne
Gaakeer, Menno I
Schutte, Charlotte E
Jie, Kim E
Visee, Huib F
Hunink, Myriam G M
Reijners, Eef
Braaksma, Meriam
Schoonman, Guus G
Steyerberg, Ewout W
Jellema, Korné
Dippel, Diederik W J
author_facet Foks, Kelly A
van den Brand, Crispijn L
Lingsma, Hester F
van der Naalt, Joukje
Jacobs, Bram
de Jong, Eline
den Boogert, Hugo F
Sir, Özcan
Patka, Peter
Polinder, Suzanne
Gaakeer, Menno I
Schutte, Charlotte E
Jie, Kim E
Visee, Huib F
Hunink, Myriam G M
Reijners, Eef
Braaksma, Meriam
Schoonman, Guus G
Steyerberg, Ewout W
Jellema, Korné
Dippel, Diederik W J
author_sort Foks, Kelly A
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Three university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury. RESULTS: For the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6108278
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61082782018-11-06 External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands Foks, Kelly A van den Brand, Crispijn L Lingsma, Hester F van der Naalt, Joukje Jacobs, Bram de Jong, Eline den Boogert, Hugo F Sir, Özcan Patka, Peter Polinder, Suzanne Gaakeer, Menno I Schutte, Charlotte E Jie, Kim E Visee, Huib F Hunink, Myriam G M Reijners, Eef Braaksma, Meriam Schoonman, Guus G Steyerberg, Ewout W Jellema, Korné Dippel, Diederik W J BMJ Research OBJECTIVE: To externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Three university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury. RESULTS: For the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2018-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6108278/ /pubmed/30143521 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3527 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Foks, Kelly A
van den Brand, Crispijn L
Lingsma, Hester F
van der Naalt, Joukje
Jacobs, Bram
de Jong, Eline
den Boogert, Hugo F
Sir, Özcan
Patka, Peter
Polinder, Suzanne
Gaakeer, Menno I
Schutte, Charlotte E
Jie, Kim E
Visee, Huib F
Hunink, Myriam G M
Reijners, Eef
Braaksma, Meriam
Schoonman, Guus G
Steyerberg, Ewout W
Jellema, Korné
Dippel, Diederik W J
External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands
title External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands
title_full External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands
title_fullStr External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands
title_full_unstemmed External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands
title_short External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands
title_sort external validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the netherlands
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6108278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30143521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3527
work_keys_str_mv AT fokskellya externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT vandenbrandcrispijnl externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT lingsmahesterf externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT vandernaaltjoukje externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT jacobsbram externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT dejongeline externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT denboogerthugof externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT sirozcan externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT patkapeter externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT polindersuzanne externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT gaakeermennoi externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT schuttecharlottee externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT jiekime externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT viseehuibf externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT huninkmyriamgm externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT reijnerseef externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT braaksmameriam externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT schoonmanguusg externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT steyerbergewoutw externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT jellemakorne externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands
AT dippeldiederikwj externalvalidationofcomputedtomographydecisionrulesforminorheadinjuryprospectivemulticentrecohortstudyinthenetherlands