预测轻度创伤性脑损伤的计算机断层扫描结果和神经外科干预需求的临床决策规则:一项前瞻性观察性研究。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Seyed Mohammad Forouzannia, Hadis Najafimehr, Rosita Khatamian Oskooi, Gholamreza Faridaalaee, Shayan Roshdi Dizaji, Amirmohammad Toloui, Seyed Ali Forouzannia, Seyedeh Niloufar Rafiei Alavi, Mohammadreza Alizadeh, Saeed Safari, Alireza Baratloo, Mahmoud Yousefifard, Mostafa Hosseini
{"title":"预测轻度创伤性脑损伤的计算机断层扫描结果和神经外科干预需求的临床决策规则:一项前瞻性观察性研究。","authors":"Seyed Mohammad Forouzannia, Hadis Najafimehr, Rosita Khatamian Oskooi, Gholamreza Faridaalaee, Shayan Roshdi Dizaji, Amirmohammad Toloui, Seyed Ali Forouzannia, Seyedeh Niloufar Rafiei Alavi, Mohammadreza Alizadeh, Saeed Safari, Alireza Baratloo, Mahmoud Yousefifard, Mostafa Hosseini","doi":"10.1007/s00068-023-02373-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In this study, we will compare the diagnostic values of head CT decision rules in predicting the findings of CT scans in a prospective multicenter study in university emergency departments in Iran.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary outcome was any traumatic lesion findings in brain CT scans, and the secondary outcomes were death, the need for mechanical ventilation, and neurosurgical intervention. Decision rules including the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), New Orleans Criteria (NOC), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS), and Neurotraumatology Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (NCWFNS) were compared for the main outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 434 mild TBI patients were enrolled in the study. The NCWFNS had the highest sensitivity (91.14%) and the lowest specificity (39.42%) for predicting abnormal finding in CT scan compared to other models. While the NICE obtained the lowest sensitivity (79.75%), it was associated with the highest specificity (66.67%). All model performances were improved when administered to predict neurosurgical intervention among patients with GCS 13-15. NEXUS (AUC 0.862, 95% CI 0.799-0.924) and NCWFNS (AUC 0.813, 95% CI 0.723-0.903) had the best performance among all evaluated models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The NCWFNS and the NEXUS decision rules performed better than the CCHR and NICE guidelines for predicting any lesion in the CT imaging and neurosurgical intervention among patients with mTBI with GCS 13-15. For a subset of mTBI patients with GCS 15, the NOC criteria have higher sensitivity for abnormal CT imaging, but lower specificity and more requested CTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12064,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1199-1207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical decision rules in predicting computed tomography scan findings and need for neurosurgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Seyed Mohammad Forouzannia, Hadis Najafimehr, Rosita Khatamian Oskooi, Gholamreza Faridaalaee, Shayan Roshdi Dizaji, Amirmohammad Toloui, Seyed Ali Forouzannia, Seyedeh Niloufar Rafiei Alavi, Mohammadreza Alizadeh, Saeed Safari, Alireza Baratloo, Mahmoud Yousefifard, Mostafa Hosseini\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00068-023-02373-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In this study, we will compare the diagnostic values of head CT decision rules in predicting the findings of CT scans in a prospective multicenter study in university emergency departments in Iran.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary outcome was any traumatic lesion findings in brain CT scans, and the secondary outcomes were death, the need for mechanical ventilation, and neurosurgical intervention. Decision rules including the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), New Orleans Criteria (NOC), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS), and Neurotraumatology Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (NCWFNS) were compared for the main outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 434 mild TBI patients were enrolled in the study. The NCWFNS had the highest sensitivity (91.14%) and the lowest specificity (39.42%) for predicting abnormal finding in CT scan compared to other models. While the NICE obtained the lowest sensitivity (79.75%), it was associated with the highest specificity (66.67%). All model performances were improved when administered to predict neurosurgical intervention among patients with GCS 13-15. NEXUS (AUC 0.862, 95% CI 0.799-0.924) and NCWFNS (AUC 0.813, 95% CI 0.723-0.903) had the best performance among all evaluated models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The NCWFNS and the NEXUS decision rules performed better than the CCHR and NICE guidelines for predicting any lesion in the CT imaging and neurosurgical intervention among patients with mTBI with GCS 13-15. For a subset of mTBI patients with GCS 15, the NOC criteria have higher sensitivity for abnormal CT imaging, but lower specificity and more requested CTs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1199-1207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-023-02373-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-023-02373-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在这项研究中,我们将在伊朗大学急诊科的一项前瞻性多中心研究中,比较头部CT决策规则在预测CT扫描结果方面的诊断价值。方法:主要结果是脑CT扫描中的任何创伤性病变,次要结果是死亡、需要机械通气和神经外科干预。比较了包括加拿大CT头部规则(CCHR)、新奥尔良标准(NOC)、国家健康与临床卓越研究所(NICE)、国家急诊X射线照相利用研究(NEXUS)和世界神经外科学会联合会神经创伤学委员会(NCWFNS)在内的决策规则的主要结果。结果:总共有434名轻度TBI患者参与了该研究。与其他模型相比,NCWFNS在预测CT扫描异常发现方面具有最高的敏感性(91.14%)和最低的特异性(39.42%)。NICE的敏感性最低(79.75%),但特异性最高(66.67%)。当用于预测GCS 13-15患者的神经外科干预时,所有模型性能都得到了改善。NEXUS(AUC 0.862,95%CI 0.799-0.924)和NCWFNS(AUC 0.8 13,95%CI 0.7 23-0.903)在所有评估模型中表现最好。结论:NCWFNS和NEXUS决策规则在预测GCS 13-15 mTBI患者的CT成像和神经外科干预中的任何病变方面优于CCHR和NICE指南。对于患有GCS 15的mTBI患者子集,NOC标准对异常CT成像具有更高的敏感性,但特异性较低,需要更多的CT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Clinical decision rules in predicting computed tomography scan findings and need for neurosurgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study.

Clinical decision rules in predicting computed tomography scan findings and need for neurosurgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study.

Purpose: In this study, we will compare the diagnostic values of head CT decision rules in predicting the findings of CT scans in a prospective multicenter study in university emergency departments in Iran.

Methods: The primary outcome was any traumatic lesion findings in brain CT scans, and the secondary outcomes were death, the need for mechanical ventilation, and neurosurgical intervention. Decision rules including the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), New Orleans Criteria (NOC), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS), and Neurotraumatology Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (NCWFNS) were compared for the main outcomes.

Results: In total, 434 mild TBI patients were enrolled in the study. The NCWFNS had the highest sensitivity (91.14%) and the lowest specificity (39.42%) for predicting abnormal finding in CT scan compared to other models. While the NICE obtained the lowest sensitivity (79.75%), it was associated with the highest specificity (66.67%). All model performances were improved when administered to predict neurosurgical intervention among patients with GCS 13-15. NEXUS (AUC 0.862, 95% CI 0.799-0.924) and NCWFNS (AUC 0.813, 95% CI 0.723-0.903) had the best performance among all evaluated models.

Conclusion: The NCWFNS and the NEXUS decision rules performed better than the CCHR and NICE guidelines for predicting any lesion in the CT imaging and neurosurgical intervention among patients with mTBI with GCS 13-15. For a subset of mTBI patients with GCS 15, the NOC criteria have higher sensitivity for abnormal CT imaging, but lower specificity and more requested CTs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
311
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery aims to open an interdisciplinary forum that allows for the scientific exchange between basic and clinical science related to pathophysiology, diagnostics and treatment of traumatized patients. The journal covers all aspects of clinical management, operative treatment and related research of traumatic injuries. Clinical and experimental papers on issues relevant for the improvement of trauma care are published. Reviews, original articles, short communications and letters allow the appropriate presentation of major and minor topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信