 |
|
The Canadian C-Spine Rule for Radiography in Alert and Stable Trauma Patients
Ian G. Stiell, MD,MSc,FRCPC;
George A. Wells, PhD;
Katherine L. Vandemheen, BScN;
Catherine M. Clement, RN;
Howard Lesiuk, MD;
Valerie J. De Maio, MD,MSc;
Andreas Laupacis, MD,MSc;
Michael Schull, MD,MSc;
R. Douglas McKnight, MD;
Richard Verbeek, MD;
Robert Brison, MD,MPH;
Daniel Cass, MD;
Jonathan Dreyer, MD;
Mary A. Eisenhauer, MD;
Gary H. Greenberg, MD;
Iain MacPhail, MD,MHSc;
Laurie Morrison, MD,MSc;
Mark Reardon, MD;
James Worthington, MBBS
JAMA. 2001;286:1841-1848.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context High levels of variation and inefficiency exist in current clinical practice regarding use of cervical spine (C-spine) radiography in alert and stable trauma patients.
Objective To derive a clinical decision rule that is highly sensitive for detecting acute C-spine injury and will allow emergency department (ED) physicians to be more selective in use of radiography in alert and stable trauma patients.
Design Prospective cohort study conducted from October 1996 to April 1999, in which physicians evaluated patients for 20 standardized clinical findings prior to radiography. In some cases, a second physician performed independent interobserver assessments.
Setting Ten EDs in large Canadian community and university hospitals.
Patients Convenience sample of 8924 adults (mean age, 37 years) who presented to the ED with blunt trauma to the head/neck, stable vital signs, and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15.
Main Outcome Measure Clinically important C-spine injury, evaluated by plain radiography, computed tomography, and a structured follow-up telephone interview. The clinical decision rule was derived using the  coefficient, logistic regression analysis, and  2 recursive partitioning techniques.
Results Among the study sample, 151 (1.7%) had important C-spine injury. The resultant model and final Canadian C-Spine Rule comprises 3 main questions: (1) is there any high-risk factor present that mandates radiography (ie, age  65 years, dangerous mechanism, or paresthesias in extremities)? (2) is there any low-risk factor present that allows safe assessment of range of motion (ie, simple rear-end motor vehicle collision, sitting position in ED, ambulatory at any time since injury, delayed onset of neck pain, or absence of midline C-spine tenderness)? and (3) is the patient able to actively rotate neck 45° to the left and right? By cross-validation, this rule had 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 98%-100%) and 42.5% specificity (95% CI, 40%-44%) for identifying 151 clinically important C-spine injuries. The potential radiography ordering rate would be 58.2%.
Conclusion We have derived the Canadian C-Spine Rule, a highly sensitive decision rule for use of C-spine radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. If prospectively validated in other cohorts, this rule has the potential to significantly reduce practice variation and inefficiency in ED use of C-spine radiography.
INTRODUCTION
More than 1 million patients with blunt trauma and potential cervical spine (C-spine) injury are treated each year in US emergency departments (EDs).1-2 Among those patients presenting with intact neurological status (arriving either walking or by ambulance), the incidence of acute fracture or spinal injury is less than 1%.3-5 Due to concerns about potentially disabling spinal injuries, most clinicians make liberal use of C-spine radiography.6-9 Nevertheless, such practice is inefficient—more than 98% of C-spine radiographs are negative for fracture.10-16 Furthermore, there is considerable practice variation among well-trained emergency physicians, with radiography rates ranging as much as 6-fold.17 Cervical spine radiography is an example of a "little ticket" item, a low-cost procedure that significantly adds to health care costs due to its high volumes of use.18-19
There are no widely accepted guidelines that have been shown to be both safe and efficient in guiding the use of C-spine radiography. Recently, clinical decision rules have been developed to guide physicians in making diagnostic or therapeutic decisions—for example, the use of radiography for patients with ankle or knee injuries.20-23 A clinical decision rule may be defined as a decision-making tool that is derived from original research and that incorporates 3 or more variables from the history, physical examination, or simple tests.24-25 The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) low-risk criteria for C-spine radiography were recently evaluated in a large study of EDs that found the criteria to be 99.6% sensitive for clinically important injuries.26 However, the specificity was only 12.9%, leading to concerns that use of the NEXUS criteria would actually increase the use of radiography in some US jurisdictions and in most countries outside of the United States.
We believe that the current inefficiency and variability of clinical practice can be remedied with the development of an accurate, reliable, and clinically sensible decision rule. Hence, the objective of this study was to derive a clinical decision rule that would be highly sensitive for detecting acute C-spine injury among patients sustaining blunt trauma who are alert and stable but at risk for neck injury. This will ultimately allow physicians to be more selective in their use of radiography without jeopardizing patient care.
METHODS
Study Setting and Population
This prospective cohort study was conducted in 10 large Canadian community and university hospitals and included consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED after sustaining acute blunt trauma to the head or neck. We did not include the many patients presenting with trivial injuries, such as simple lacerations to the face.The treating physician's decision of whether to order radiography had no bearing on the enrollment of patients into the study. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were at some risk for C-spine injury either because they had neck pain from any mechanism of injury, or because they had no neck pain but had all of the following: some visible injury above the clavicles, had not been ambulatory, and had sustained a dangerous mechanism of injury. In addition, patients had to be alert, which was defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 15 (scale range, 3-15), and stable, defined as normal vital signs (systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg and respiratory rate between 10 and 24/min).
Patients were excluded if they: (1) were younger than 16 years; (2) had minor injuries, such as simple lacerations, and did not fulfill the first 2 inclusion criteria above; (3) had a GCS score lower than 15; (4) had grossly abnormal vital signs; (5) were injured more than 48 hours previously; (6) had penetrating trauma; (7) presented with acute paralysis; (8) had known vertebral disease (ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, spinal stenosis, or previous cervical surgery), as determined by the examining physician; (9) had returned for reassessment of the same injury; or (10) were pregnant. Eligible patients transferred from other hospitals with suspected C-spine injury were enrolled at the study sites with the proviso that physicians complete the data form prior to reviewing radiographic films. Many of these patients proved not to have C-spine injury. The research ethics committees of the study hospitals approved the protocol without the need for informed consent. Patients followed up had an opportunity to give verbal consent during the telephone interview conducted by a study nurse.
Standardized Patient Assessment
All patient assessments were made by staff physicians certified in emergency medicine or by supervised residents in emergency medicine training programs. The physician assessors were trained with a 1-hour session to evaluate patients for 20 standardized clinical findings from the history, general examination, and assessment of neurological status. These potential predictor variables were selected by a team of investigators at a planning consensus conference based on a review of the existing literature and on results of a pilot study. Findings were recorded on a data collection sheet prior to radiography. A subset of patients, where feasible, were independently assessed by a second emergency physician to judge interobserver agreement. An additional 5 demographic variables were obtained from hospital records by study nurses.
Outcome Measures and Assessment
The primary outcome measure was clinically important cervical spine injury, defined as any fracture, dislocation, or ligamentous instability demonstrated by diagnostic imaging. Clinically unimportant cervical spine injuries generally do not require stabilizing treatment or specialized follow-up and the definition for this has been standardized based on the results of a formal survey of 129 neurosurgeons, spinal surgeons, and emergency physicians at 8 tertiary care hospitals.27 All C-spine injuries were considered clinically important unless the patient was neurologically intact and had 1 of 4 injuries: (1) isolated avulsion fracture of an osteophyte (2) isolated fracture of a transverse process not involving a facet joint (3) isolated fracture of a spinous process not involving the lamina or (4) simple compression fracture involving less than 25% of the vertebral body height.
After the clinical examination, patients underwent plain radiography of the C-spine according to the judgment of the treating physician, not according to any preset guidelines. Radiographs were interpreted by qualified staff radiologists who were blinded to the contents of the data collection sheet. The reliability of the radiography interpretations was assessed by having all abnormal radiographs and 1% (randomly selected) of normal radiographs reviewed by a second radiologist who was blinded to the first interpretation. Radiography consisted of a minimum of 3 views. Patients also underwent flexion-extension views and computed tomography of the C-spine at the discretion of the treating physician.
Because not all patients with blunt trauma routinely undergo C-spine radiography at the Canadian study sites, we could not ethically mandate universal radiography for all eligible patients. Consequently, all enrolled patients who did not have radiography underwent the structured 14-day proxy outcome measure administered by telephone by a registered nurse. Patient telephone numbers were verified by the treating emergency physician. According to this tool, patients were classified as having no clinically important C-spine injury if they met all of the following 4 explicit criteria for 14 days: (1) neck pain rated as none or mild, (2) restriction of neck movement rated as none or mild, (3) use of a cervical collar not required, and (4) neck injury has not prevented return to usual occupational activities. The assessment of these criteria was made by registered nurses who were unaware of the patient's status for the individual predictor clinical variables. Patients who did not fulfill the criteria were recalled for clinical assessment and radiography. Patients who could not be reached were excluded from the final study analysis. These criteria have been previously shown to identify all C-spine injuries in a substudy that applied the telephone follow-up questionnaire to a sample of 389 study patients (including 66 with clinically important C-spine injury) who had all undergone radiography.28
Data Analysis
The interobserver agreement for each variable was measured by calculating the coefficient, the proportion of potential agreement beyond chance, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).29-30 Values were not calculated for variables collected from medical records (eg, age or mechanisms of injury). Univariate analyses were used to determine the strength of association between each variable and the primary outcome to aid selection of the best variables for the multivariable analyses. The appropriate univariate techniques were chosen according to the type of data. For nominal data, the 2 test with continuity correction was used; for ordinal variables, the Mann-Whitney U test; and for continuous variables, the unpaired 2-tailed t test, using pooled or separate variance estimates as appropriate.
Those variables found to be both reliable (>0.6) and strongly associated with the outcome measure (P<.05) were combined using either recursive partitioning or logistic regression. The objective was to find the best combinations of predictor variables, ie, those highly sensitive for detecting the outcome measure while achieving the maximum possible specificity. Building of the regression model proceeded with forward stepwise selection until no variables met the criteria for entry (P<.05) or removal (P>.10) for the significance levels of the likelihood-ratio test. Recursive partitioning was performed as an alternative technique using KnowledgeSEEKER, version 3.1 (Angoss Software International, Toronto, Ontario).31-32 Our experience suggested recursive partitioning may be more suitable than logistic regression when the objective is to correctly classify one outcome group at the expense of the other (ie, where high sensitivity is more important than overall accuracy).
The derived decision rule was cross-validated by comparing the classification of all patients to their actual status for the primary outcomes allowing estimates, with 95% CIs, of the sensitivity and specificity of the rule. In addition, we conducted a statistical validation using a jackknife nonparametric estimate of bias for the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of the rule.33-34 The a priori sample size was estimated to be 8000 patients and 120 injury cases, based on the desired precision of 100% sensitivity for clinically important C-spine injury with 95% confidence limits of 97% to 100%.
RESULTS
Between October 1996 and April 1999, 12 782 eligible patients were examined at the study sites. Of these, 8924 patients were enrolled and assessed for the primary outcome measure, clinically important C-spine injury, and thus made up the final study group (Table 1). Not included in this study group were 3281 eligible patients examined but not enrolled by the treating physicians. All characteristics of these nonenrolled patients were very similar to those of the patients enrolled except for slightly higher rates of arrival by ambulance (61% vs 54%), transfer from another hospital (10% vs 4%), and incidence of C-spine injury (3.2% vs 2.0%). Finally, 577 eligible patients were also not included in the final study group because they did not undergo C-spine radiography and could not be reached for the proxy outcome measure. This latter group were much less severely injured: only 32% arrived by ambulance, 0.2% were transfers from other hospitals, and only 0.9% were admitted to hospital. Of the patients in the final study group, 6185 (68.9%) underwent C-spine radiography and the remaining 31.1% underwent the structured 14-day telephone proxy outcome measure administered by a registered nurse. Of all study patients, 151 (1.7%) were determined to have a clinically important C-spine injury. The radiologists showed 100% agreement in diagnosing C-spine injury. An additional 28 (0.3%) patients were judged to have a clinically unimportant C-spine injury, primarily avulsion fractures. No patient contacted for the proxy outcome measure was later determined to have a C-spine injury.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Characteristics of Patients Presenting With Potential Cervical Spine Injury (N = 8924)*
|
|
|
Table 2 and Table 3 show the association between the predictor variables and clinically important C-spine injury as determined by univariate analyses. Overall, we evaluated 25 primary predictor variables (20 from the physician's form and 5 from the chart) as well as another 8 created by combination or cutpoints. Table 2 also shows the interobserver agreement for the primary clinical variables from those patients (n = 150) examined by 2 physicians.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Univariate Correlation and Values for Variables From History and Examination for Clinically Important Cervical Spine Injury*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Univariate Correlation of Variables From Mechanism of Injury for Clinically Important Cervical Spine Injury*
|
|
|
Logistic regression analysis (Table 4) provided a model with good overall accuracy for discriminating cases with clinically important C-spine injury (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.91; P = .94 for the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test). We also conducted recursive-partitioning analysis, which ultimately resulted in a more clinically acceptable model. The predictor variables in this latter statistical model were then combined into a simple algorithm, the "Canadian C-Spine Rule" (Figure 1). This clinical decision rule asks 3 basic questions and establishes the safety of evaluating active range of motion by identifying high-risk and low-risk factors.
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Odds Ratios of Clinical Variables in the Final Model for Predicting Clinically Important Cervical Spine Injury*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure. The Canadian C-Spine Rule
MVC indicates motor vehicle collision; ED, emergency department.
|
|
|
The potential classification performance of the Canadian C-Spine Rule for identifying 151 cases with clinically important C-spine injury reveals a sensitivity (95% CI) of 100% (98%-100%) and a specificity of 42.5% (40%-44%) (Table 5). From the jackknife statistical analysis, we calculated the bias-corrected estimates for sensitivity to be 100% and those for specificity to be 42.63%; the bias for overall accuracy was estimated to be 2.12%. We estimate a potential C-spine radiography rate of 58.2% in this cohort, a relative reduction of 15.5% from 68.9%. The rule also would have identified 27 out of 28 patients with clinically unimportant C-spine injury. One 63-year-old patient not identified had a small C3 osteophyte avulsion fracture and was discharged from the ED with a cervical collar.
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Performance of the Canadian C-Spine Rule for Clinically Important Cervical Spine Injury*
|
|
|
COMMENT
This represents the largest derivation study yet conducted of patients having potential C-spine injury, evaluating the accuracy and reliability of 25 clinical variables and enrolling 8 times more patients than any previous derivation study. We developed a highly sensitive clinical decision rule that, if prospectively validated, will allow physicians to rationally order C-spine radiography for alert and stable trauma patients who are at risk for neck injury. This will lead to more timely and efficient use of resources without jeopardizing patient care. This new Canadian C-Spine Rule identifies those trauma patients who require C-spine radiography based on 3 simple clinical questions. First, patients judged to be at high risk due to age, dangerous mechanism of injury, or paresthesias must undergo radiography. Second, patients with any 1 of 5 low-risk characteristics may safely undergo assessment of active range of motion. Third, patients who are able to actively rotate their neck 45° to the left and to the right, regardless of pain, do not require C-spine radiography. The Canadian C-Spine Rule was derived according to strict methodological standards and provides a very tight CI around the estimated sensitivity of 100% for detecting injury. Future studies will further evaluate the rule for accuracy and reliability, acceptability to clinicians, and actual impact on patient care.
We believe that current use of C-spine radiography for alert and stable trauma patients is very inefficient and highly variable.12, 15-16 Most patients in the United States undergo radiography regardless of their clinical presentation. While Canadian practice is more selective, we have shown that there is very large variation among hospitals and physicians in their use of C-spine radiography.17 This 2-fold variation among hospitals and 6-fold variation among certified attending emergency physicians persisted even after using multivariable analysis to control for differences in severity of trauma. There is considerable controversy among emergency physicians, neurosurgeons, and trauma surgeons regarding indications for C-spine radiography. Some firmly maintain that all trauma patients should undergo radiography.3, 7, 35-37 For example, in its Advanced Trauma Life Support Course, the American College of Surgeons recommends that " . . . C-spine films should be attained on every patient sustaining an injury above the clavicle and especially a head injury."38 Other trauma clinicians agree that a selective approach is ideal but do not give clear recommendations.39-41 Most authors suggest that radiography may not be required in alert patients with no pain or tenderness of the neck.42-46 Such an approach is still very conservative, but only a few authors are willing to suggest that radiography may be withheld in alert patients with neck pain if there is no midline bone tenderness of the neck.47-48 According to Neifeld and colleagues,13 "the real difficulty exists in patients who are awake, alert, have normal physical examination findings and have minimal or no symptoms." This latter group represents the largest group of blunt trauma patients and the greatest potential for improved efficiency of radiography. Our own surveys have shown that most Canadian physicians and those in the United States disagree with guidelines for universal C-spine radiography and support evidence-based guidelines if they are shown to be accurate and reliable.49
A number of studies have been conducted in recent years by emergency physicians, trauma surgeons, and radiologists to identify a group of trauma patients who do not need C-spine radiography. Unfortunately, these studies have great variability in design and none could be considered robust according to methodological standards for the development of clinical decision rules. An exception are the US-based NEXUS criteria, which have recently received prominent attention after the publication of a huge validation study incorporating more than 34 000 patients.26, 48, 50 These guidelines state that no C-spine radiography is required if patients satisfy all 5 low-risk criteria: absence of midline tenderness, normal level of alertness, no evidence of intoxication, no abnormal neurological findings, and no painful distracting injuries. We have concerns about the sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of these criteria. The authors' own calculated specificity of 12% is very low and may actually lead to an increase in the use of C-spine radiography in most countries outside of the United States. Clinicians in Canada have found 2 of the criteria ("presence of intoxication" and "distracting painful injuries") to be poorly reproducible. We recently attempted a retrospective validation of the NEXUS criteria based upon our database of 8924 patients and found that the criteria failed to predict 10 of 148 clinically important injuries, yielding a sensitivity of only 93%.51 We believe that the NEXUS criteria should be further evaluated, prospectively and explicitly, for sensitivity, specificity, and interobserver agreement in multiple sites before they can be accepted for widespread clinical use.
One strength of our study was the strict adherence to methodological standards for the derivation of clinical decision rules.24-25,52-54 The primary outcome measure, clinically important C-spine injury, was clearly defined and was assessed in a blinded fashion. In addition, the clinical findings used as predictors were standardized and collected without knowledge of the outcome measure. The reproducibility of the predictor findings was assessed by having a subset of patients examined by 2 physicians. The study subjects were selected without bias and based on preset criteria rather than on the subjective decision of individual physicians to order C-spine radiography. These patients represented a wide spectrum of clinical characteristics and geographic sites, hence increasing generalizability. The mathematical techniques for deriving the rule were explicit and appropriate. We believe that the format of the rule, a simple list of questions, makes it clinically sensible for the intended audience of busy emergency physicians. Furthermore, the rule appears to be highly sensitive for the clinically important outcome, making its use safe for patient care. In addition, it is relatively specific, making it an efficient tool. The true impact of the Canadian C-Spine Rule, however, can only be determined in a prospective study to evaluate the accuracy, interobserver agreement, clinician acceptability, and potential radiograph ordering rates in a new patient population.
Conversely, our study has potential limitations that warrant discussion. Some may be concerned about our use of clinically important C-spine injury as the primary outcome. Our definition has, however, been well accepted by Canadian academic neurosurgeons, spine surgeons, and emergency physicians. We believe that this represents a pragmatic and very safe approach to patient care. The priority of diagnostic imaging for these trauma patients should be to identify C-spine injuries that require treatment and follow-up. Clinically unimportant C-spine injuries, according to the academic surgeons in our survey, require neither stabilizing treatment nor specialized follow-up and are unlikely to be associated with long-term problems. Furthermore, the Canadian C-Spine Rule has also proven to be very sensitive for the clinically unimportant injuries, missing only 1 small avulsion fracture that required treatment with a cervical collar only.
Another potential limitation is that not all study patients underwent C-spine radiography. The Canadian clinicians in our study often withhold diagnostic imaging for trauma patients whom they consider to be at low risk for injury. Consequently, we could not ethically insist upon universal radiography for all patients. Patients were only classified as having no clinically important injury if they satisfied all criteria on the structured 14-day telephone proxy outcome tool. Patients who could not fulfill all criteria were recalled for radiography and patients who could not be reached were excluded from the final analysis. The proxy outcome tool has been validated and shown to be very accurate in identifying patients with clinically important injuries. In addition, we acknowledge that not all eligible patients were enrolled in the study. However, this is not unusual for a clinical study and we are confident that there was no selection bias—the characteristics of patients not enrolled were very similar to those of the patients who were enrolled.
The Canadian C-Spine Rule encompasses many variables that have previously not been prominently considered in guidelines for the use of C-spine radiography. We found that patients 65 years or older and those experiencing paresthesias were at considerable risk of C-spine injury, and that all such patients should undergo radiography. In addition, our data clearly demonstrate that particular mechanisms of injury are associated with substantially increased risk of important injury and that patients with such injuries should not be further examined prior to radiography. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that 5 factors put the patient at very low risk of injury and allow safe assessment of range of motion: simple rear-end motor vehicle collision, found to be in the sitting position in the ED, ambulatory status at any time after the injury, delayed onset of neck pain, and absence of midline C-spine tenderness. The final common pathway of the Canadian C-Spine Rule requires patients to successfully demonstrate an ability to rotate the neck actively left and right a minimum of 45°, regardless of pain. This assessment mirrors clinical practice in Canada but would appear to be a relatively uncommon approach in US sites that have adopted the NEXUS criteria.
There are 2 potential implications of a decision rule or guideline for the use of C-spine radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. First, patient management would become standardized and more efficient. The great variation of current practice and the extremely low yield of radiography suggest a need for accurate and reliable guidelines. A sensitive and specific decision rule would reduce the unnecessary use of radiography and would allow much more rapid triage and evaluation of patients brought to the ED by ambulance stretcher. Such patients often languish for hours on an uncomfortable backboard before their C-spine is judged free of injury.
Second, an accurate decision rule could lead to significant savings for our health care systems. The current variation in practice and very low yield of C-spine radiography among alert and stable trauma patients would suggest significant potential for reducing the use of this radiography. Our survey of emergency physicians in 5 North American and European countries clearly indicates a willingness to adopt a decision rule for C-spine radiography.55 Based on our studies that show large reductions in the use of ankle radiography after the implementation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules,20-21 we estimate that a 25% to 50% relative reduction in the use of C-spine radiography could be safely achieved.
There is currently much controversy in the literature and much variation and inefficiency in clinical practice regarding the use of C-spine radiography for alert and stable trauma patients. Our study has developed the highly sensitive Canadian C-Spine Rule to identify a large group of patients for whom C-spine radiography is unnecessary. If prospectively validated in other cohorts, this rule has the potential to standardize and improve efficiency in the use of C-spine radiography in EDs.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Author Contributions: Study concept and design: Stiell, Wells, Vandemheen, Lesiuk, Laupacis, McKnight, Verbeek, Brison, Dreyer, Eisenhauer, Greenberg, MacPhail, Reardon.
Acquisition of data: Stiell, Vandemheen, Clement, McKnight, Verbeek, Brison, Cass, Dreyer, Eisenhauer, Greenberg, MacPhail, Morrison, Worthington.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Stiell, Wells, De Maio.
Drafting of the manuscript: Stiell, Schull.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Stiell, Wells, Vandemheen, Clement, Lesiuk, De Maio, Laupacis, Schull, McKnight, Verbeek, Brison, Cass, Dreyer, Eisenhauer, Greenberg, MacPhail, Morrison, Reardon, Worthington.
Statistical expertise: Stiell, Wells, De Maio.
Obtained funding: Stiell, Wells, Vandemheen, Lesiuk, Laupacis.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Stiell, Vandemheen, Schull.
Study supervision: Vandemheen, Clement,
Funding/Support: This study was funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Medical Research Council of Canada (MT-13700) and the Ontario Ministry of Health Emergency Health Services Committee (11996N). Drs Stiell and Laupacis hold Investigator Awards from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Acknowledgment: We thank the following for their much appreciated assistance: study nurses Erica Battram, RN, Kim Bradbury, RN, Teresa Cacciotti, RN, Pamela Sheehan, RN, Taryn MacKenzie, RN, Kathy Bowes, RN, Karen Code, RN, Virginia Blak-Genoway, RN, Debbie Karsh, RN, Sharon Mason, RN, Percy MacKerricher, RN, and Jan Buchanan, RN; My-Linh Tran and Emily Moen for data management; Irene Harris for manuscript preparation; and all the physicians, nurses, and clerks at the study sites who voluntarily and patiently assisted with case identification and data collection.
Corresponding Author: Ian G. Stiell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, F6, Ottawa Health Research Institute, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4E9 (e-mail: istiell{at}ohri.ca).
Author Affiliations: Division of Emergency Medicine (Drs Stiell, Greenberg, Reardon, and Worthington), Department of Medicine (Drs Stiell, Wells, and Laupacis), Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine (Drs Stiell and Wells), Division of Neurosurgery (Dr Lesiuk), and Clinical Epidemiology Unit (Drs Stiell and De Maio, and Mss Vandemheen and Clement), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario; Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario (Dr Brison); Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario (Drs Schull, Verbeek, Cass, and Morrison); Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London (Drs Dreyer and Eisenhauer); Division of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Drs McKnight and MacPhail).
REFERENCES
| |
1. McCaig LF. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 emergency department summary. Adv Data. 1994;245:1-12.
2. National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 1992. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; 1994.
3. Reid DC, Henderson R, Saboe L, Miller JD. Etiology and clinical course of missed spine fractures. J Trauma. 1987;27:980-986.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
4. Diliberti T, Lindsey RW. Evaluation of the cervical spine in the emergency setting: who does not need an x-ray? Orthopedics. 1992;15:179-183.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
5. Bachulis BL, Long WB, Hynes GD, Johnson MC. Clinical indications for cervical spine radiographs in the traumatized patient. Am J Surg. 1987;153:473-478.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
6. McNamara RM, Heine E, Esposito B. Cervical spine injury and radiography in alert, high-risk patients. J Emerg Med. 1990;8:177-182.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
7. McKee TR, Tinkoff G, Rhodes M. Asymptomatic occult cervical spine fracture: case report and review of the literature. J Trauma. 1990;30:623-626.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
8. Roberge RJ, Wears RC, Kelly M, et al. Selective application of cervical spine radiography in alert victims of blunt trauma: a prospective study. J Trauma. 1988;28:784-788.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
9. Jacobs LM, Schwartz R. Prospective analysis of acute cervical spine injury: a methodology to predict injury. Ann Emerg Med. 1986;15:44-49.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
10. Fischer RP. Cervical radiographic evaluation of alert patients following blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med. 1984;13:905-907.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
11. Gbaanador GBM, Fruin AH, Taylon C. Role of routine emergency cervical radiography in head trauma. Am J Surg. 1986;152:643-648.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
12. Bayless P, Ray VG. Incidence of cervical spine injuries in association with blunt head trauma. Am J Emerg Med. 1989;7:139-142.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
13. Neifeld GL, Keene JG, Hevesy G, Leikin J, Proust A, Thisted RA. Cervical injury in head trauma. J Emerg Med. 1988;6:203-207.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
14. Vandemark RM. Radiology of the cervical spine in trauma patients: practice pitfalls and recommendations for improving efficiency and communication. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155:465-472.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Roberge RJ. Facilitating cervical spine radiography in blunt trauma. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1991;9:733-742.
PUBMED
16. Daffner RH. Cervical radiography in the emergency department: who, when, how extensive? J Emerg Med. 1993;11:619-620.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
17. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, et al. Variation in emergency department use of cervical spine radiography for alert, stable trauma patients. CMAJ. 1997;156:1537-1544.
ABSTRACT
18. Moloney TW, Rogers DE. Medical technology: a different view of the contentious debate over costs. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1413-1419.
ABSTRACT
19. Angell M. Cost containment and the physician. JAMA. 1985;254:1203-1207.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules. JAMA. 1994;271:827-832.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Stiell IG, Wells G, Laupacis A, et al for the Multicentre Ankle Rule Study Group. A multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. BMJ. 1995;311:594-597.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, et al. Prospective validation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA. 1996;275:611-615.
FREE FULL TEXT
23. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Hoag RA, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa Knee Rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA. 1997;278:2075-2079.
FREE FULL TEXT
24. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 1997;277:488-494.
FREE FULL TEXT
25. Stiell IG, Wells GA. Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33:437-447.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
26. Hoffman JR, Mower WR, Wolfson AB, Todd KH, Zucker MI. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:94-99.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Stiell IG, Lesiuk H, Vandemheen K, et al. Obtaining consensus for a definition of "Clinically Important Cervical Spine Injury" in the CCC Study [abstract 196]. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6:435.
28. Stiell IG, Vandemheen K, Brison R, et al. Validity evaluation of the cervical spine injury proxy outcome assessment tool in the CCC Study [abstract 195]. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6:434.
29. Kramer MS, Feinstein AR. Clinical biostatistics, LIV: the biostatistics of concordance. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;29:111-123.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
30. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
31. Ciampi A, Hogg SA, McKinney S, Thiffault J. RECPAM: a computer program for recursive partition and amalgamation for censored survival data and other situations frequently occurring in biostatistics, I: methods and program features. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1988;26:239-256.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
32. Friedman JH. A recursive partitioning decision rule for nonparametric classification. IEEE Trans Comput. 1977;16:404-408.
33. Efron B. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia, Pa: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; 1982.
34. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
35. Changaris DG. Cervical spine films, cost, and algorithms. Am J Surg. 1987;153:478.
FULL TEXT
36. Woodring JH, Lee C. Limitations of cervical radiography in the evaluation of acute cervical trauma. J Trauma. 1993;34:32-39.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
37. Davis JW, Phreaner DL, Hoyt DB, Mackersie RC. The etiology of missed cervical spine injuries. J Trauma. 1993;34:342-346.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
38. Advanced Trauma Life Support Instructor Manual. 5th ed. Chicago, Ill: American College of Surgeons; 1993.
39. Hills MW, Deane SA. Head injury and facial injury: is there an increased risk of cervical spine injury? J Trauma. 1993;34:549-554.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
40. Frye G, Wolfe T, Knopp R, Lesperance R, Williams J. Intracranial hemorrhage as a predictor of occult cervical-spine fracture. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;23:797-801.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
41. Williams J, Jehle D, Cottington E, Shufflebarger C. Head, facial, and clavicular trauma as a predictor of cervical-spine injury. Ann Emerg Med. 1992;21:719-722.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
42. Roberge RJ, Wears RC. Evaluation of neck discomfort, neck tenderness, and neurologic deficits as indicators for radiography in blunt trauma victims. J Emerg Med. 1992;10:539-544.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
43. Roth BJ, Martin RR, Foley K, Barcia PJ, Kennedy P. Roentgenographic evaluation of the cervical spine: a selective approach. Arch Surg. 1994;129:643-645.
FREE FULL TEXT
44. Domeier RM, Evans RW, Swor RA, Frederiksen SM. Prospective validation of prehospital spinal clearance criteria [abstract 053]. Acad Emerg Med. 1995;2:355-356.
45. Rosen P, Barkin RM, Danzl DF, et al. Emergency Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice. 4th ed. Toronto, Ontario: CV Mosby Co; 1998.
46. Tintinalli JE, Kelen GD, Stapczynski JS. Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide. 5th ed. Toronto, Ontario: McGraw-Hill Inc; 2000.
47. McNamara RM, O'Brien MC, Davidheiser S. Post-traumatic neck pain: a prospective and follow-up study. Ann Emerg Med. 1988;17:906-911.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
48. Hoffman JR, Schriger DL, Mower W, Luo JS, Zucker M. Low-risk criteria for cervical-spine radiography in blunt trauma: a prospective study. Ann Emerg Med. 1992;21:1454-1460.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
49. Graham ID, Stiell IG, Laupacis A, O'Connor AM, Wells GA. Emergency physicians' attitudes toward the use of clinical decision rules for radiography. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5:134-140.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
50. Hoffman JR, Wolfson AB, Todd K, Mower WR. Selective cervical spine radiography in blunt trauma: methodology of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study(NEXUS). Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:461-469.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
51. Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Wells GA, et al. Application of the Nexus Low-Risk Criteria for cervical spine radiography in Canadian emergency departments [abstract 417]. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7:566.
52. Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules: application and methodological standards. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:793-799.
ABSTRACT
53. Feinstein AR. Clinimetrics. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1987.
54. McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, Naylor CD, Stiell IG, Richardson WS. Users' guides to the medical literature, XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA. 2000;284:79-84.
FREE FULL TEXT
55. Graham ID, Stiell IG, Laupacis A, et al. Emergency physicians' views on the use of computed tomography and cervical spine radiography. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care; June, 7-10 1998; Ottawa, Ontario.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Decisions About Cervical Spine Radiography Following Trauma
Richard Lynch, John H. Harris, Jr, Ian G. Stiell, and George A. Wells
JAMA. 2002;287(5):583-584.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLES
Identifying Patients at Low Risk for Cervical Spine Injury: The Canadian C-Spine Rule for Radiography
Richard H. Daffner
JAMA. 2001;286(15):1893-1894.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
October 17, 2001
JAMA. 2001;286(15):1911-1912.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Neck Injuries
JAMA. 2001;286(15):1928.
PDF
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Prediction rules in cervical spine injury
Podichetty and Morisue
BMJ 2009;339:b4139-b4139.
FULL TEXT
Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: prospective 12 centre cluster randomised trial
Stiell et al.
BMJ 2009;339:b4146-b4146.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Imaging of Cervical Spine Injuries in Athletes
Bogner
Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach 2009;1:384-391.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
`Clearing' the cervical spine in conscious trauma patients
Blackham and Benger
Trauma 2009;11:93-109.
ABSTRACT
Clinical Prediction Rules for Physical Therapy Interventions: A Systematic Review
Beneciuk et al.
ptjournal 2009;89:114-124.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
College Football Player With Unstable C1 Fracture: A Case Report
Bales et al.
Am J Sports Med 2009;37:195-198.
FULL TEXT
The rational clinical examination in emergency care
Mackway-Jones
BMJ 2008;337:a2374-a2374.
FULL TEXT
Imaging after trauma to the neck
Wee et al.
BMJ 2008;337:a207-a207.
FULL TEXT
Imaging after trauma to the neck
Wee et al.
BMJ 2008;336:154-157.
FULL TEXT
Undetected Hangman's Fracture in a Patient Referred for Physical Therapy for the Treatment of Neck Pain Following Trauma
Ross and Cheeks
ptjournal 2008;88:98-104.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Paediatric cervical spine injury but NEXUS negative
Maxwell and Jardine
Emerg. Med. J. 2007;24:676-676.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Pragmatic Neurological Screen for Patients With Suspected Cord Compressive Myelopathy
Cook et al.
ptjournal 2007;87:1233-1242.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prehospital clearance of the cervical spine: does it need to be a pain in the neck?
Armstrong et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2007;24:501-503.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Can a normal range of elbow movement predict a normal elbow x ray?
Lennon et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2007;24:86-88.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Fractures of the atlas: can we rely on the NICE guidelines for imaging the cervical spine after head injury?
Barry et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2006;23:e52-e52.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Translating Clinical Research into Clinical Practice: Impact of Using Prediction Rules To Make Decisions
Reilly and Evans
ANN INTERN MED 2006;144:201-209.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Subaxial Cervical Spine Trauma
Kwon et al.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006;14:78-89.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Development and Application of Clinical Prediction Rules to Improve Decision Making in Physical Therapist Practice
Childs and Cleland
ptjournal 2006;86:122-131.
FULL TEXT
Part 14: First Aid
Circulation 2005;112:IV-196-IV-203.
FULL TEXT
Axial trauma
Barron
Imaging 2005;17:236-257.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Part 10: First Aid
Circulation 2005;112:III-115-III-125.
FULL TEXT
Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in Patients With Minor Head Injury
Stiell et al.
JAMA 2005;294:1511-1518.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pitfalls in the clinical diagnosis of vertebral fractures: a case series in which posterior midline tenderness was absent
D'Costa et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2005;22:330-332.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical Prediction Rules in Trauma Imaging: Who, How, and Why?
Blackmore
Radiology 2005;235:371-374.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
9 Assessment and care of musculoskeletal problems
FitzSimmons and Wardrope
Emerg. Med. J. 2005;22:68-76.
FULL TEXT
Cervical Spine Fractures in Patients 65 Years and Older: A Clinical Prediction Rule for Blunt Trauma
Bub et al.
Radiology 2005;234:143-149.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Clinical Prediction Rule To Identify Patients with Low Back Pain Most Likely To Benefit from Spinal Manipulation: A Validation Study
Childs et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:920-928.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation and Treatment of Posterior Neck Pain in Family Practice
Douglass and Bope
J Am Board Fam Med 2004;17:S13-S22.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Radiology in paediatric cervical spine injury
Martin
Emerg. Med. J. 2004;21:648-648.
FULL TEXT
Patterns and risks in spinal trauma
Martin et al.
Arch. Dis. Child. 2004;89:860-865.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Management of the Helmeted Athlete With Suspected Cervical Spine Injury
Waninger
Am J Sports Med 2004;32:1331-1350.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Risk assessment for spinal injury after trauma
Wardrope et al.
BMJ 2004;328:721-723.
FULL TEXT
Clearing the cervical spine of paediatric trauma patients
Slack and Clancy
Emerg. Med. J. 2004;21:189-193.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria in Patients with Trauma
Stiell et al.
NEJM 2003;349:2510-2518.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Choosing between Clinical Prediction Rules
Yealy and Auble
NEJM 2003;349:2553-2555.
FULL TEXT
Ottawa ankle rules for the injured ankle
Heyworth
Br. J. Sports. Med. 2003;37:194-194.
FULL TEXT
CT Versus Radiography for Initial Evaluation of Cervical Spine Trauma: What Is the Standard of Care?
Berlin
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003;180:911-915.
FULL TEXT
Medical students' application of published evidence: randomised trial
Schwartz and Hupert
BMJ 2003;326:536-538.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Ottawa ankle rules for the injured ankle
Heyworth
BMJ 2003;326:405-406.
FULL TEXT
Prevention of chronic pain after whiplash
Ferrari
Emerg. Med. J. 2002;19:526-530.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Decisions About Cervical Spine Radiography Following Trauma
Lynch et al.
JAMA 2002;287:583-584.
FULL TEXT
New Clinical Rule Highly Sensitive for Cervical Spine Injuries
JWatch Emergency Med. 2001;2001:2-2.
FULL TEXT
Identifying Patients at Low Risk for Cervical Spine Injury: The Canadian C-Spine Rule for Radiography
Daffner
JAMA 2001;286:1893-1894.
FULL TEXT
|
