0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article |

A Clinical Decision Rule for Cranial Computed Tomography in Minor Pediatric Head Trauma FREE

Shireen M. Atabaki, MD, MPH; Ian G. Stiell, MD, MSc, FRCPC; Jeffrey J. Bazarian, MD; Karin E. Sadow, MD; Tien T. Vu, MD; Mary A. Camarca, MD; Scott Berns, MD, MPH; James M. Chamberlain, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC (Drs Atabaki, Vu, and Chamberlain); Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Dr Stiell); and Departments of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York (Dr Bazarian); Mount Sinai University Medical Center, New York, New York (Dr Sadow); Denver Children's Hospital, Denver, Colorado (Dr Vu); Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, Virginia (Dr Camarca); and Brown University School of Medicine, Hasbro Children's Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island (Dr Berns).


Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(5):439-445. doi:10.1001/archpedi.162.5.439.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objectives  To develop a sensitive clinical decision rule with a high negative predictive value for the use of cranial computed tomography (CT) in minor pediatric head trauma, to identify clinical features predictive of neurosurgical intervention, and to assess clinicians' predictive abilities to determine the presence or absence of intracranial injury based on history and physical examination alone.

Design  Prospective observational study.

Setting  Four level I pediatric trauma centers.

Participants  One thousand patients younger than 21 years with minor head trauma undergoing cranial CT.

Main Outcome Measure  Intracranial injury as demonstrated by CT and neurosurgical intervention.

Results  Of 1000 patients in the study, the mean age was 8.9 years, and 64.1% were male; 6.5% (65 of 1000) had positive findings on CT, and 9.2% (6 of 65) of these required neurosurgical intervention. Recursive partitioning identified the following variables in the decision rule: dizziness, skull defect, sensory deficit, mental status change, bicycle-related injury, age younger than 2 years, Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 15, and evidence of a basilar skull fracture. For detection of intracranial injury, the decision rule had a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.2%-98.8%), a specificity of 48.9% (95% CI, 46.6%-52.1%), and a negative predictive value of 99.3% (95% CI, 98.1%-99.8%).

Conclusions  We developed a sensitive clinical decision rule with a high NPV for detection of intracranial injury in minor pediatric head trauma. If validated, this rule could provide a useful adjunct to the physician's clinical assessment by reducing variations in practice and unnecessary cranial CT.

Figures in this Article

Head trauma is the most common cause of trauma-related morbidity in children, accounting for more than 1 million emergency department visits per year in the United States.1,2 Computed tomography (CT) has added substantially to the management of head trauma in adults and children by allowing earlier detection of intracranial injuries (ICIs). Cranial CT is obtained liberally in pediatric and adult patients with head trauma because evidence suggests that patients can be safely discharged home after negative findings on CT provided that the patients are neurologically normal.35 Minor head trauma has been defined as a history of a loss of consciousness (LOC) or posttraumatic amnesia and a Glasgow Coma Scale score greater than 12.3,6 Approximately 83% to 97% of CT findings are negative in the setting of minor head trauma.7 Recommendations in adults with minor head trauma range from obtaining cranial CT in every patient with LOC and amnesia for the event, to imaging only those patients with LOC longer than 5 minutes or with focal neurologic deficits.3,812 Clinical criteria for neuroimaging after minor head trauma in children remain unclear, and there is no consensus regarding patient selection for CT.1317 While some authors emphasized LOC, amnesia, skull fracture, scalp lacerations, or changes in behavior as reliable indicators of ICI, others found no consistent clinical predictors of positive CT findings in children who do not otherwise have grossly obvious signs of intracranial pathologic conditions.1824 Clinical decision aids for neuroimaging derived in recent prospective studies2529 will need to be further validated before they can be widely implemented by clinicians.

The frequency of pediatric CT almost doubled between 1996 and 1999, with approximately 2.7 million cases of pediatric CT performed annually in the United States.3032 Early exposure to radiation poses a significant associated risk. Estimated lifetime cancer mortality risk from CT may be an order of magnitude higher in a 1-year-old child than in an adult.3133 With radiation-attributable cancer risk as high as 1 case in 1400 among infants exposed to cranial CT,31,33 the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration have made recommendations to decrease radiation exposure and the risk of subsequent cancers by eliminating unnecessary CT.32,34 Cost-benefit analyses of the liberal use of CT in closed head trauma have shown additional costs and risks for the many patients in the pediatric population who require sedation for the procedure.35 Increased length of stay in the emergency department and potential parental dissatisfaction must also be considered.

Variation in practice with respect to CT of the child with minor head trauma persists.36 Clinical decision rules seek to reduce variability in medical management by providing evidence-derived guidelines for clinical care, improving the overall efficacy of health care.37,38 The Canadian CT Head Rule was developed to address variation in clinical management and neuroimaging in adult blunt head trauma, the effects of which are under investigation.6,39,40 Similar studies41,42 have resulted in improved testing strategies for ankle injuries, bacteremia, and simple febrile seizures. The primary objective of our study was to develop a clinical decision rule for the use of cranial CT in minor pediatric head trauma that is highly sensitive and has a high negative predictive value (NPV) for the prediction of acute ICI. Secondary objectives were (1) to identify clinical features predictive of neurosurgical intervention and (2) to assess clinicians' predictive abilities to determine the presence or absence of ICI based on history and physical examination alone.

We enrolled a prospective convenience sample of patients from birth to 21 years of age with closed head trauma undergoing cranial CT. Patients were enrolled from 1 of 4 participating level I pediatric trauma centers between March 1, 1997, and March 30, 2000. Patients were excluded from enrollment if they had a prior CT scan at a referring hospital and if they had a Glasgow Coma Scale score (GCS) less than 13 determined by the treating physician at the participating trauma center. The institutional review boards of all sites approved the project. Because this was an observational study, a waiver of informed consent was allowed.

A standardized data collection survey was completed by a pediatric emergency medicine–trained attending or fellow physician (including S.M.A., J.J.B, K.E.S., M.A.C., and J.M.C. and others) before cranial CT. A pilot study using this instrument was performed from January 4, 1997, to February 25, 1997. Clinical variables for the final survey were obtained by literature review and by group consensus among a panel of pediatric emergency medicine–trained physicians (including S.M.A., K.E.S., M.A.C., and J.M.C. and others). A witness cosignature on survey completion was required before access to CT results, ensuring that predictor variables from clinical and historical findings of the examining physician were recorded without knowledge of the outcome of CT. Variables assessed included amnesia, dizziness, headache, intoxication, lethargy, seizure, vomiting, behavior change, scalp hematoma, scalp lacerations, palpable skull defect, mechanism of injury, sensory or motor deficit, signs of basilar skull fracture, and the presence and duration of LOC. Loss of consciousness was determined by witnessed report, and behavior change was defined as any change in behavior by report of the patient's parent or caregiver. Amnesia, dizziness, and headache were determined by patient report. Other signs and symptoms were determined by the treating physician.

Included in the data collection was the physician's estimate of the probability of ICI. We obtained data on the patient's procedures, final disposition, length of hospital stay, and other diagnostic test results by medical record review. A pediatric neuroradiologist interpreted cranial CT images. Intracranial injury was defined as subdural, epidural, subarachnoid, intraparenchymal, and intraventricular hemorrhages, as well as contusions and cerebral edema. The secondary outcome was defined as the performance of any neurosurgical procedure, including craniotomy, craniectomy, evacuation, or intracranial pressure monitoring.

Commercially available software (SPSS version 20; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois) was used for statistical analysis. Univariate analyses were used to determine the strength of association between each variable and the primary outcome to select the best variables for the multivariate analyses. The univariate techniques were chosen according to the type of data (χ2 test with continuity correction for nominal data, Mann-Whitney test for ordinal variables, and unpaired 2-tailed t test for continuous variables, using pooled or separate variance estimates as appropriate).

Those variables found to be strongly associated (P < .05) with the outcome measure were combined using recursive partitioning analyses. Recursive partitioning is a multivariate statistical approach that creates a branching decision tree by dividing the patient population into subgroups with and without the outcome of interest based on the contents of predictor variables in the subgroups. Recursive partitioning was performed using commercially available software (KnowledgeSEEKER version 3.1; Angoss Software International, Toronto, Ontario, Canada).38

The derived decision rule was cross-validated by comparing the classification of each patient with his or her actual status for the primary outcomes, allowing an estimate of the sensitivity and specificity of the rule with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Clinicians' predictions of ICI were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (very likely, likely, unable to determine, unlikely, and very unlikely).

Sample size calculations were based on prior data estimating a 12% incidence of positive CT findings among patients with head trauma having a GCS of 13 to 15.7 We determined that we would need approximately 1040 patients to create a decision rule with a lower 95% CI for sensitivity.

Demographic data and clinical findings of the study group are given in Tables 1, 2, and 3. There were 1151 patients enrolled initially. One hundred fifty-one patients had a GCS less than 13 and were excluded from further analysis. Of the remaining 1000 patients, the mean age was 8.9 years, 64.1% were male, and 18.8% of patients were younger than 2 years. Slightly more than half (54.6%) arrived via the emergency medical services system.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of the Entire Study Group vs the Patients With Intracranial Injury
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Cranial Computed Tomographic Findings in the Patients With Intracranial Injurya
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Univariate Association of Predictor Variables

Sixty-five patients (6.5%) had positive findings on CT indicating ICI (Table 2), and 9.2% (6 of 65) of these required subsequent neurosurgical intervention (0.6% overall in the study group). Intracranial hemorrhages were the most frequent types of ICI, with a finding of subdural hematoma in 26 of 65 patients with ICI (40.0%). As expected, multiple intracranial injuries were also common, occurring in 14 of 65 patients (21.5%). One patient had an equivocal CT finding that suggested artifact or contusion. To determine a conservative decision rule, we elected to include this patient in the group with ICI. Of 65 patients who had positive CT findings, 6 patients required neurosurgical intervention (during the admission): 5 patients underwent craniectomy with evacuation, and 1 patient received placement of an intracranial pressure monitor.

Table 3 gives the association of each predictor variable with the outcome of ICI using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. Among 10 categories denoting injury mechanism, falls were the primary cause of minor head trauma in our population, accounting for 44.4% of total cases, with an OR for ICI of 2.10 (95% CI, 1.26-3.52). Motor vehicle crashes were the second most common cause of injury (20.4%) but were unassociated with ICI (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20-1.01). Seizure, skull defect, sensory deficit, scalp laceration, and mental status change demonstrated higher risk for ICI than other symptoms of concern such as LOC, headache, and vomiting. Children younger than 2 years were more likely to have a positive CT finding (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.03-5.75).

Recursive partitioning resulted in the following rule for optimal prediction of ICI (Figure): dizziness, sensory deficit, GCS less than 15, mental status change, bicycle-related injury, age younger than 2 years, skull defect on examination, and evidence of a basilar skull fracture (Battle sign, rhinorrhea, hemotympanum, periorbital ecchymosis, or cerebrospinal fluid otorrhea). In this decision rule, pediatric patients who meet GCS definitions for minor head trauma and have at least 1 of the historical or clinical criteria listed are at higher risk for ICI. Children without any of these risk factors are unlikely to have ICI.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Pediatric head computed tomography decision rule. GCS indicates Glasgow Coma Scale score; ICI, intracranial injury.

Graphic Jump Location

For the detection of ICI in 1000 study patients, the decision rule had a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI, 86.2%-98.8%), a specificity of 48.9% (95% CI, 45.6%-52.1%), and an NPV of 99.3% (95% CI, 98.1%-99.8%) (Figure). Three of 65 patients who had ICI findings on CT were not identified by the decision rule, although none required neurosurgical intervention. Table 4 gives a description of these patients, including the patient with the equivocal CT finding of contusion vs artifact.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Patients With Positive Intracranial Injury Findings on Computed Tomography in Whom the Decision Rule Was Negativea

The sensitivity of the clinician's predictions of ICI based on history and physical examination was 14.8% (95% CI, 7.1%-27.7%), which was significantly lower compared with that of the decision rule (95.4%) (Table 5).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Clinician's Ability to Predict Intracranial Injurya

We developed a clinical decision rule for cranial CT in minor pediatric head trauma with high sensitivity for the detection of ICI. In this study, the clinical decision rule was found to be far more sensitive than the clinician's overall judgment of whether an ICI would be demonstrated on CT and had better NPV for the outcomes of interest. We believe that the liberal use of cranial CT, as recommended by several previous retrospective studies,12,15 does not outweigh the costs and risks associated with this procedure compared with the overall incidence of clinically significant ICI. Children without any of the 8 risk factors in our decision rule are at low risk for ICI and their conditions can be managed with close outpatient observation. Blind application of the rule to all patients with minor head trauma is not recommended. Given that the cohort of patients enrolled in this study all underwent CT, we selected for patients who were likely at higher risk for ICI. This clinical decision rule should be used as an additional tool to help guide clinicians who are considering cranial CT in a child with minor head trauma.

The clinical decision rule derived in this study is based on prospectively collected data and is consistent with expert consensus on several fronts. In our study, sensory deficit, GCS less than 15, palpable skull defect, mental status change, age younger than 2 years, and signs of basilar skull fracture were associated with higher risk for ICI than other signs or symptoms of concern such as LOC, amnesia, headache, and vomiting. Stiell et al6 published a decision rule for CT in adults with minor head injury. High-risk factors in this rule were age 65 years or older, signs of basilar skull fracture, 2 or more episodes of vomiting, suspected open or depressed skull fracture, and failure to reach a GCS of 15 within 2 hours. We similarly found that signs of basilar or depressed skull fracture contributed to our decision rule, which is also consistent with the association between skull fracture in children and increased ICI risk found by Oman et al,27 Dunning et al,28 and Quayle et al.43 The results of a study conducted by Palchak et al25 agreed with our findings that abnormal mental status and signs of skull fracture were high-risk factors for traumatic brain injury in children but differed from our study in that they found an increased risk of traumatic brain injury associated with vomiting. Haydel and Shembekar26 concluded that CT was indicated for minor head trauma if 1 of the following 6 findings was present: emesis, headache, posttraumatic seizure, drug or alcohol intoxication, deficits in short-term memory, or physical evidence of trauma above the clavicles. Davis et al23 did not find a reliable association between LOC and ICI, although scalp lacerations and neurologic deficits were statistically significant indicators. Similarly, Falimirski et al18 concluded that LOC alone was not predictive of significant injury and was not an absolute indication for cranial CT. Similar to our study, Greenes and Schutzman19,20,44 found that those younger than 2 years are at increased risk for ICI, with as many as 48% of injuries being occult or asymptomatic. Several characteristics unique to this younger age group may increase their likelihood of ICI, including higher incidence of skull fractures and increased risk for nonaccidental trauma.17,20,44,45 Published guidelines have been developed separately for children 2 years and older by the American Academy of Pediatrics and for children younger than 2 years by expert consensus and literature review.44,46,47 The decision rule derived in our study identifies a cohort of children at low risk for ICI. These data are consistent with previous literature highlighting an increased risk associated with age younger than 2 years.4447 Children in this age category fall outside of the low-risk criteria. This does not imply that all patients not meeting low-risk criteria (including age <2 years) should undergo cranial CT. Clinical decision rules are best used for decision support and should not replace clinical judgment.

We found that predictors such as fall, seizure, drug or alcohol intoxication, and scalp hematoma were statistically significant in univariate analysis but did not contribute in multivariate analysis. We also found that bicycle injuries placed children in a higher risk category for ICI. This may be unique to our patient population, most of whose injuries occurred in an urban environment and without protective headgear.

There are several limitations to our study. The injury rates from our study may underestimate those of the general population. We sought to develop a sensitive decision rule to detect ICI in children with minor head trauma and a GCS of 13 or higher who would undergo CT using pertinent historical and clinical data available to the emergency department physician, including mechanism of injury. This may exclude a proportion of patients with minor head trauma who did not undergo CT and may have had positive findings. However, we presume that the rates of ICI in this population are lower than those in our study group. Enrollment was dependent on practicing clinicians; therefore, we did not capture all eligible children with minor head trauma seen during the study period. We used the classical definition of minor head trauma as those patients with a GCS score exceeding 12. Although we acknowledge that there is some controversy surrounding this definition and that many clinicians believe that a GCS of 13 should be classified as moderate head trauma, we followed the recommendations of Stiell et al.6

Methodological advantages of this study over prior investigations are the prospective data collection and multicenter patient enrollment. The patients in this study represent populations from various sites and yield more generalizable results. If validated, our decision rule has the potential to reduce unnecessary cranial CT. The magnitude of this reduction depends on local practice regarding neuroimaging after minor head trauma. In many centers, routine CT in all patients with minor head trauma has emerged as the standard of emergency care. The results of this study suggest that implementation of the decision rule in centers with practice like those in the study would avoid CT in 46.3% of all patients with minor head trauma. Only 0.7% would have missed traumatic CT abnormalities, none of which required surgery. In addition to reducing radiation exposure risk, hospital charges for nonenhanced cranial CT in the United States range from $500 to $900; therefore, this could also result in significant cost savings.48 Assessment of the effectiveness of such a rule requires prospective validation and measure of interobserver reliability, which we plan to perform in a future study.

Despite the importance of this study and others in refining the clinical indicators for CT, 2 important clinical questions remain. First, what is the significance of positive CT findings that do not require neurosurgical intervention? Is the detection of a clinically insignificant intracranial hemorrhage or contusion worth the risks of irradiation and sedation? Second, how useful are negative CT findings in symptomatic children? Prior studies have demonstrated behavioral changes in mildly head-injured patients, and some authors have recommended subsequent neurodevelopmental testing of these patients.4951 Attempts should be made to identify children at risk for long-term sequelae who may benefit from neuropsychologic testing and closer outpatient monitoring. In the future, functional imaging and psychometric testing may replace CT for the assessment of the child with minor head trauma.

Given the numbers of closed head injuries in children, if validated and implemented, this study could affect care by reducing unnecessary CT. A decrease in the frequency of cranial CT can lead to a decrease in radiation exposure, health care costs, the use of conscious sedation with its associated risks and costs, and the amount of time each patient spends in the emergency department.

Correspondence: Shireen M. Atabaki, MD, MPH, Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 111 Michigan Ave NW, Washington, DC 20010-2970 (satabaki@cnmc.org).

Accepted for Publication: October 18, 2007.

Author Contributions: Dr Atabaki had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Atabaki, Stiell, and Chamberlain. Acquisition of data: Atabaki, Bazarian, Sadow, Camarca, Berns, and Chamberlain. Analysis and interpretation of data: Atabaki, Stiell, Bazarian, Vu, and Chamberlain. Drafting of the manuscript: Atabaki, Vu, Camarca, and Chamberlain. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Atabaki, Stiell, Bazarian, Sadow, Berns, and Chamberlain. Statistical analysis: Stiell. Obtained funding: Atabaki. Administrative, technical, and material support: Sadow. Study supervision: Atabaki and Chamberlain.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by grants from the Research Advisory Council, the Children's Research Institute, the Children's National Medical Center, and the Joel and Barbara Alpert Foundation for the Children of the City of Boston (Dr Atabaki).

Previous Presentations: Portions of this study were presented in abstract form at the Section on Emergency Medicine of the American Academy of Pediatrics Annual Meeting; October 18, 2002; Boston, Massachusetts.

Additional Contributions: Stephen Teach, MD, MPH, and Bruce Klein, MD, provided comments on the manuscript. Cheng Shao, MPH, assisted with the statistical analysis.

Jager  TEWeiss  HBCoben  JHPepe  PE Traumatic brain injuries evaluated in U.S. emergency departments, 1992-1994. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7 (2) 134- 140
PubMed
US Bureau of the Census,Visits to Hospital Emergency Departments by Diagnosis. Hyattsville, MD National Center for Health Statistics June25 2001;Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 320
Shackford  SRWald  SLRoss  SE  et al.  The clinical utility of computed tomographic scanning and neurologic examination in the management of patients with minor head injuries. J Trauma 1992;33 (3) 385- 394
PubMed
Livingston  DHLoder  PAKoziol  JHunt  D The use of CT scanning to triage patients requiring admission following minimal head injury. J Trauma 1991;31 (4) 483- 489
PubMed
Stein  SCRoss  SE The value of computed tomographic scans in patients with low-risk head injuries. Neurosurgery 1990;26 (4) 638- 640
PubMed
Stiell  IGWells  GAVandemheen  K  et al.  The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001;357 (9266) 1391- 1396
PubMed
Jagoda  ASCantrill  SVWears  RL  et al.  Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decision-making in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40 (2) 231- 249
PubMed
Jeret  JSMandell  MAnziska  B  et al.  Clinical predictors of abnormality disclosed by computed tomography after mild head trauma. Neurosurgery 1993;32 (1) 9- 16
PubMed
Reinus  WRWippold  FJ  IIErickson  KK Practical selection criteria for noncontrast cranial computed tomography in patients with head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22 (7) 1148- 1155
PubMed
Moran  SG McCarthy  MCUddin  DEPolestra  RJ Predictors of positive CT scans in the trauma patient with minor head injury. Am Surg 1994;60 (7) 533- 536
PubMed
Masters  SJ McClean  PMArcarese  JS  et al.  Skull x-ray examinations after head trauma. N Engl J Med 1987;316 (2) 84- 91
PubMed
Waxman  KSundine  MJYoung  RF Is early prediction of outcome in severe head injury possible? Arch Surg 1991;126 (10) 1237- 1241
PubMed
Dietrich  AMBowman  MJGinn-Pease  MEKosnik  EKing  DR Pediatric head injuries: can clinical factors reliably predict an abnormality on computed tomography? Ann Emerg Med 1993;22 (10) 1535- 1540
PubMed
Rivara  FTanaguchi  DParish  RAStimac  GKMueller  B Poor prediction of positive computed tomographic scans by clinical criteria in symptomatic pediatric head trauma. Pediatrics 1987;80 (4) 579- 584
PubMed
Hennes  HLee  MSmith  DSty  JRLosek  J Clinical predictors of severe head trauma in children. Am J Dis Child 1988;142 (10) 1045- 1047
PubMed
Simon  BLetourneau  PVitorino  E McCall  J Pediatric minor head trauma: indications for computed tomographic scanning revisited. J Trauma 2001;51 (2) 231- 238
PubMed
Shane  SAFuchs  SM Skull fractures in infants and predictors of associated intracranial injury. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997;13 (3) 198- 203
PubMed
Falimirski  MEGonzalez  RRodriguez  AWilberger  J The need for head computed tomography in patients sustaining loss of consciousness after mild head injury. J Trauma 2003;55 (1) 1- 6
PubMed
Greenes  DSSchutzman  SA Clinical significance of scalp abnormalities in asymptomatic head-injured infants. Pediatr Emerg Care 2001;17 (2) 88- 92
PubMed
Greenes  DSSchutzman  SA Occult intracranial injury in infants. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32 (6) 680- 686
PubMed
Schunk  JERodgerson  JDWoodward  GA The utility of head computed tomographic scanning in pediatric patients with normal neurologic examination in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 1996;12 (3) 160- 165
PubMed
Davis  RLHughes  MGubler  KDWaller  PLRivara  FP The use of cranial CT scans in the triage of pediatric patients with mild head injury. Pediatrics 1995;95 (3) 345- 349
PubMed
Davis  RLMullen  NMakela  MTaylor  JACohen  WRivara  FP Cranial computed tomography scans in children after minimal head injury with loss of consciousness. Ann Emerg Med 1994;24 (4) 640- 645
PubMed
Halley  MKSilva  PDFoley  JRodarte  A Loss of consciousness: when to perform computed tomography. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2004;5 (3) 230- 233
PubMed
Palchak  MJHolmes  JFVance  CW  et al.  A decision rule for identifying children at low risk for brain injuries after blunt head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42 (4) 492- 506
PubMed
Haydel  MJShembekar  AD Prediction of intracranial injury in children aged five years and older with loss of consciousness after minor head injury due to nontrivial mechanisms. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42 (4) 507- 514
PubMed
Oman  JACooper  RJHolmes  JF  et al. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) Investigators, Performance of a decision rule to predict need for computed tomography among children with blunt head trauma. Pediatrics 2006;117 (2) e238- e24610.1136/adc.2005.083980
PubMed
Dunning  JDaly  JPLomas  JP  et al. Children's Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events Study Group, Derivation of the children's head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events decision rule for head injury in children. Arch Dis Child 2006;91 (11) 885- 891
PubMed
Sun  BCHoffman  JRMower  WR Evaluation of a modified prediction instrument to identify significant pediatric intracranial injury after blunt head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49 (3) 325- 332
PubMed
Mettler  FA  JrWiest  PWLocken  JAKelsey  CA CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000;20 (4) 353- 359
PubMed
Brenner  DElliston  CHall  EBerdon  W Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176 (2) 289- 296
PubMed
National Cancer Institute Web site, Radiation risks and pediatric computed tomography (CT): a guide for health care providers. http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/causes/radiation-risks-pediatric-ct. Accessed February 7, 2008
Brenner  DJ Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32 (4) 228- 231
PubMed
Food and Drug Administration, FDA Public Health Notification Pediatr Radiol 2002;32 (4) 314- 316
PubMed
Montserrat  VFleisher  GRBarnes  PDBjornson  BHAllred  ENGoldmann  DA Computed tomography imaging in children with head trauma: utilization and appropriateness from a quality improvement prospective. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14 (8) 491- 499
PubMed
Kuppermann  NHolmes  JFDayan  PS  et al.  PECARN. Blunt head trauma in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). Abstract presented at: Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies May 2007 Toronto, Ontario, Canadaand Annual Meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine May 2007 Chicago, IllinoisAbstract E-PAS2007:615705.3
Stiell  IGWells  GA Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33 (4) 437- 447
PubMed
Stiell  IGLesuik  HWells  GA  et al. Canadian CT Head and C-Spine Study Group, The Canadian CT Head Rule Study for patients with minor head injury: rationale, objectives, and methodology for phase I (derivation). Ann Emerg Med 2001;38 (2) 160- 169
PubMed
Stiell  IGClement  CMRowe  BH  et al.  Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury. JAMA 2005;294 (12) 1511- 1518
PubMed
Smits  MDippel  DWde Haan  GG  et al.  External validation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury. JAMA 2005;294 (12) 1519- 1525
PubMed
Stiell  IGGreenberg  GH McKnight  D  et al.  Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 1993;269 (9) 1127- 1132
PubMed
Baraff  LJBass  JWFleisher  GR  et al. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Practice guideline for the management of infants and children 0 to 36 months of age with fever without source [published erratum appears in Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22(9):1490]. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22 (7) 1198- 1210
PubMed
Quayle  KSJaffe  DMKuppermann  N  et al.  Diagnostic testing for acute head injury in children: when are head computed tomography and skull radiographs indicated? Pediatrics 1997;99 (5) e1110.1542/peds.99.5.e11
PubMed
Greenes  DSSchutzman  SA Clinical indicators of intracranial injury in head-injured infants. Pediatrics 1999;104 (4, pt 1) 861- 867
PubMed
Schutzman  SABarnes  PDuhaime  AC  et al.  Evaluation and management of children younger than two years old with apparently minor head trauma: proposed guidelines. Pediatrics 2001;107 (5) 983- 99310.1542/peds.107.5983
PubMed
Committee on Quality Improvement, American Academy of Pediatrics and Commission on Clinical Pediatrics and Research, American Academy of Family Physicians, The management of minor closed head injury in children. Pediatrics 1999;104 (6) 1407- 1415
PubMed
Homer  CJKleinman  L Electronic article: technical report: minor head injury in children. Pediatrics 1999;104 (47) e7810.1542/peds.104.6.e78
Stiell  IGWells  GAVandemheen  K  et al.  Variation in ED use of computed tomography for patients with minor head injury. Ann Emerg Med 1997;30 (1) 14- 22
PubMed
Bazarian  JJAtabaki  SM Predicting postconcussion syndrome after minor traumatic brain injury. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8 (8) 788- 795
PubMed
Greenspan  AIMacKenzie  EJ Functional outcome after pediatric head injury. Pediatrics 1994;94 (4, pt 1) 425- 432
PubMed
Bijur  PEHaslum  MGolding  J Cognitive and behavioral sequelae of mild head injury in children. Pediatrics 1990;86 (3) 337- 344
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Pediatric head computed tomography decision rule. GCS indicates Glasgow Coma Scale score; ICI, intracranial injury.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of the Entire Study Group vs the Patients With Intracranial Injury
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Cranial Computed Tomographic Findings in the Patients With Intracranial Injurya
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Univariate Association of Predictor Variables
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Patients With Positive Intracranial Injury Findings on Computed Tomography in Whom the Decision Rule Was Negativea
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Clinician's Ability to Predict Intracranial Injurya

References

Jager  TEWeiss  HBCoben  JHPepe  PE Traumatic brain injuries evaluated in U.S. emergency departments, 1992-1994. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7 (2) 134- 140
PubMed
US Bureau of the Census,Visits to Hospital Emergency Departments by Diagnosis. Hyattsville, MD National Center for Health Statistics June25 2001;Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 320
Shackford  SRWald  SLRoss  SE  et al.  The clinical utility of computed tomographic scanning and neurologic examination in the management of patients with minor head injuries. J Trauma 1992;33 (3) 385- 394
PubMed
Livingston  DHLoder  PAKoziol  JHunt  D The use of CT scanning to triage patients requiring admission following minimal head injury. J Trauma 1991;31 (4) 483- 489
PubMed
Stein  SCRoss  SE The value of computed tomographic scans in patients with low-risk head injuries. Neurosurgery 1990;26 (4) 638- 640
PubMed
Stiell  IGWells  GAVandemheen  K  et al.  The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001;357 (9266) 1391- 1396
PubMed
Jagoda  ASCantrill  SVWears  RL  et al.  Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decision-making in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40 (2) 231- 249
PubMed
Jeret  JSMandell  MAnziska  B  et al.  Clinical predictors of abnormality disclosed by computed tomography after mild head trauma. Neurosurgery 1993;32 (1) 9- 16
PubMed
Reinus  WRWippold  FJ  IIErickson  KK Practical selection criteria for noncontrast cranial computed tomography in patients with head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22 (7) 1148- 1155
PubMed
Moran  SG McCarthy  MCUddin  DEPolestra  RJ Predictors of positive CT scans in the trauma patient with minor head injury. Am Surg 1994;60 (7) 533- 536
PubMed
Masters  SJ McClean  PMArcarese  JS  et al.  Skull x-ray examinations after head trauma. N Engl J Med 1987;316 (2) 84- 91
PubMed
Waxman  KSundine  MJYoung  RF Is early prediction of outcome in severe head injury possible? Arch Surg 1991;126 (10) 1237- 1241
PubMed
Dietrich  AMBowman  MJGinn-Pease  MEKosnik  EKing  DR Pediatric head injuries: can clinical factors reliably predict an abnormality on computed tomography? Ann Emerg Med 1993;22 (10) 1535- 1540
PubMed
Rivara  FTanaguchi  DParish  RAStimac  GKMueller  B Poor prediction of positive computed tomographic scans by clinical criteria in symptomatic pediatric head trauma. Pediatrics 1987;80 (4) 579- 584
PubMed
Hennes  HLee  MSmith  DSty  JRLosek  J Clinical predictors of severe head trauma in children. Am J Dis Child 1988;142 (10) 1045- 1047
PubMed
Simon  BLetourneau  PVitorino  E McCall  J Pediatric minor head trauma: indications for computed tomographic scanning revisited. J Trauma 2001;51 (2) 231- 238
PubMed
Shane  SAFuchs  SM Skull fractures in infants and predictors of associated intracranial injury. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997;13 (3) 198- 203
PubMed
Falimirski  MEGonzalez  RRodriguez  AWilberger  J The need for head computed tomography in patients sustaining loss of consciousness after mild head injury. J Trauma 2003;55 (1) 1- 6
PubMed
Greenes  DSSchutzman  SA Clinical significance of scalp abnormalities in asymptomatic head-injured infants. Pediatr Emerg Care 2001;17 (2) 88- 92
PubMed
Greenes  DSSchutzman  SA Occult intracranial injury in infants. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32 (6) 680- 686
PubMed
Schunk  JERodgerson  JDWoodward  GA The utility of head computed tomographic scanning in pediatric patients with normal neurologic examination in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 1996;12 (3) 160- 165
PubMed
Davis  RLHughes  MGubler  KDWaller  PLRivara  FP The use of cranial CT scans in the triage of pediatric patients with mild head injury. Pediatrics 1995;95 (3) 345- 349
PubMed
Davis  RLMullen  NMakela  MTaylor  JACohen  WRivara  FP Cranial computed tomography scans in children after minimal head injury with loss of consciousness. Ann Emerg Med 1994;24 (4) 640- 645
PubMed
Halley  MKSilva  PDFoley  JRodarte  A Loss of consciousness: when to perform computed tomography. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2004;5 (3) 230- 233
PubMed
Palchak  MJHolmes  JFVance  CW  et al.  A decision rule for identifying children at low risk for brain injuries after blunt head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42 (4) 492- 506
PubMed
Haydel  MJShembekar  AD Prediction of intracranial injury in children aged five years and older with loss of consciousness after minor head injury due to nontrivial mechanisms. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42 (4) 507- 514
PubMed
Oman  JACooper  RJHolmes  JF  et al. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) Investigators, Performance of a decision rule to predict need for computed tomography among children with blunt head trauma. Pediatrics 2006;117 (2) e238- e24610.1136/adc.2005.083980
PubMed
Dunning  JDaly  JPLomas  JP  et al. Children's Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events Study Group, Derivation of the children's head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events decision rule for head injury in children. Arch Dis Child 2006;91 (11) 885- 891
PubMed
Sun  BCHoffman  JRMower  WR Evaluation of a modified prediction instrument to identify significant pediatric intracranial injury after blunt head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49 (3) 325- 332
PubMed
Mettler  FA  JrWiest  PWLocken  JAKelsey  CA CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000;20 (4) 353- 359
PubMed
Brenner  DElliston  CHall  EBerdon  W Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176 (2) 289- 296
PubMed
National Cancer Institute Web site, Radiation risks and pediatric computed tomography (CT): a guide for health care providers. http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/causes/radiation-risks-pediatric-ct. Accessed February 7, 2008
Brenner  DJ Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32 (4) 228- 231
PubMed
Food and Drug Administration, FDA Public Health Notification Pediatr Radiol 2002;32 (4) 314- 316
PubMed
Montserrat  VFleisher  GRBarnes  PDBjornson  BHAllred  ENGoldmann  DA Computed tomography imaging in children with head trauma: utilization and appropriateness from a quality improvement prospective. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14 (8) 491- 499
PubMed
Kuppermann  NHolmes  JFDayan  PS  et al.  PECARN. Blunt head trauma in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). Abstract presented at: Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies May 2007 Toronto, Ontario, Canadaand Annual Meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine May 2007 Chicago, IllinoisAbstract E-PAS2007:615705.3
Stiell  IGWells  GA Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33 (4) 437- 447
PubMed
Stiell  IGLesuik  HWells  GA  et al. Canadian CT Head and C-Spine Study Group, The Canadian CT Head Rule Study for patients with minor head injury: rationale, objectives, and methodology for phase I (derivation). Ann Emerg Med 2001;38 (2) 160- 169
PubMed
Stiell  IGClement  CMRowe  BH  et al.  Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury. JAMA 2005;294 (12) 1511- 1518
PubMed
Smits  MDippel  DWde Haan  GG  et al.  External validation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury. JAMA 2005;294 (12) 1519- 1525
PubMed
Stiell  IGGreenberg  GH McKnight  D  et al.  Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 1993;269 (9) 1127- 1132
PubMed
Baraff  LJBass  JWFleisher  GR  et al. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Practice guideline for the management of infants and children 0 to 36 months of age with fever without source [published erratum appears in Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22(9):1490]. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22 (7) 1198- 1210
PubMed
Quayle  KSJaffe  DMKuppermann  N  et al.  Diagnostic testing for acute head injury in children: when are head computed tomography and skull radiographs indicated? Pediatrics 1997;99 (5) e1110.1542/peds.99.5.e11
PubMed
Greenes  DSSchutzman  SA Clinical indicators of intracranial injury in head-injured infants. Pediatrics 1999;104 (4, pt 1) 861- 867
PubMed
Schutzman  SABarnes  PDuhaime  AC  et al.  Evaluation and management of children younger than two years old with apparently minor head trauma: proposed guidelines. Pediatrics 2001;107 (5) 983- 99310.1542/peds.107.5983
PubMed
Committee on Quality Improvement, American Academy of Pediatrics and Commission on Clinical Pediatrics and Research, American Academy of Family Physicians, The management of minor closed head injury in children. Pediatrics 1999;104 (6) 1407- 1415
PubMed
Homer  CJKleinman  L Electronic article: technical report: minor head injury in children. Pediatrics 1999;104 (47) e7810.1542/peds.104.6.e78
Stiell  IGWells  GAVandemheen  K  et al.  Variation in ED use of computed tomography for patients with minor head injury. Ann Emerg Med 1997;30 (1) 14- 22
PubMed
Bazarian  JJAtabaki  SM Predicting postconcussion syndrome after minor traumatic brain injury. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8 (8) 788- 795
PubMed
Greenspan  AIMacKenzie  EJ Functional outcome after pediatric head injury. Pediatrics 1994;94 (4, pt 1) 425- 432
PubMed
Bijur  PEHaslum  MGolding  J Cognitive and behavioral sequelae of mild head injury in children. Pediatrics 1990;86 (3) 337- 344
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 33

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Evidence Summary and Review 2

The Rational Clinical Examination EDUCATION GUIDES
Lumbar Puncture