加拿大计算机断层扫描头部规则和新奥尔良标准在轻度创伤性脑损伤:在巴基斯坦城市三级医疗机构的比较。

Surgical neurology international Pub Date : 2024-11-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.25259/SNI_320_2024
Farrukh Javeed, Marium Khan, Javeria Khan, Lal Rehman
{"title":"加拿大计算机断层扫描头部规则和新奥尔良标准在轻度创伤性脑损伤:在巴基斯坦城市三级医疗机构的比较。","authors":"Farrukh Javeed, Marium Khan, Javeria Khan, Lal Rehman","doi":"10.25259/SNI_320_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with road traffic accidents being the predominant cause in Pakistan. Computed tomography (CT) scans have become the cornerstone of investigation for all TBIs, but their widespread use raises concerns about cost-effectiveness, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. This study aimed to validate the applicability of the Canadian CT head rule (CCHR) and New Orleans Criteria (NOC) in the Pakistani population and compare their sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care academic hospital in Pakistan, including consecutive patients with acute, mild brain injury. The primary outcome was \"clinically important brain injury,\" while the secondary outcome was \"need for neurosurgical intervention.\" Univariate analysis using Chi square was performed for each variable to assess association with CT findings. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated to evaluate the performance of each decision rule.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most of the patients in our study had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 15 (92.6%). Headache was the most common parameter overall (61.7%). Clinically important CT was detected in 68 (6.7%) patients. Only 1 of the NOC and 4 CCHR variables demonstrated statistically significant association with clinically significant CT. The CCHR was 64% sensitive for detecting clinically important CTs in trauma patients with GCS of 13-15, and the NOC was 86% sensitive, with respective specificities of 70% and 33%. For predicting the need for neurosurgical intervention, the sensitivities of CCHR and NOC were 61% and 85%, and specificity was 68% and 32%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We concluded that the CCHR was more specific and accurate, and it has the potential to have a greater influence on CT ordering rates than the NOC. Further studies are recommended to validate the tools for the Pakistani population.</p>","PeriodicalId":94217,"journal":{"name":"Surgical neurology international","volume":"15 ","pages":"429"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11618677/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Canadian computed tomography head rule and New Orleans criteria in mild traumatic brain injury: Comparison at an urban tertiary care facility in Pakistan.\",\"authors\":\"Farrukh Javeed, Marium Khan, Javeria Khan, Lal Rehman\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/SNI_320_2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with road traffic accidents being the predominant cause in Pakistan. Computed tomography (CT) scans have become the cornerstone of investigation for all TBIs, but their widespread use raises concerns about cost-effectiveness, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. This study aimed to validate the applicability of the Canadian CT head rule (CCHR) and New Orleans Criteria (NOC) in the Pakistani population and compare their sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care academic hospital in Pakistan, including consecutive patients with acute, mild brain injury. The primary outcome was \\\"clinically important brain injury,\\\" while the secondary outcome was \\\"need for neurosurgical intervention.\\\" Univariate analysis using Chi square was performed for each variable to assess association with CT findings. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated to evaluate the performance of each decision rule.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most of the patients in our study had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 15 (92.6%). Headache was the most common parameter overall (61.7%). Clinically important CT was detected in 68 (6.7%) patients. Only 1 of the NOC and 4 CCHR variables demonstrated statistically significant association with clinically significant CT. The CCHR was 64% sensitive for detecting clinically important CTs in trauma patients with GCS of 13-15, and the NOC was 86% sensitive, with respective specificities of 70% and 33%. For predicting the need for neurosurgical intervention, the sensitivities of CCHR and NOC were 61% and 85%, and specificity was 68% and 32%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We concluded that the CCHR was more specific and accurate, and it has the potential to have a greater influence on CT ordering rates than the NOC. Further studies are recommended to validate the tools for the Pakistani population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical neurology international\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"429\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11618677/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical neurology international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_320_2024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical neurology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_320_2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:外伤性脑损伤(TBI)是世界范围内死亡和发病的主要原因,道路交通事故是巴基斯坦的主要原因。计算机断层扫描(CT)已成为所有创伤性脑损伤调查的基础,但其广泛使用引起了对成本效益、辐射暴露和意外发现的担忧。本研究旨在验证加拿大CT头部规则(CCHR)和新奥尔良标准(NOC)在巴基斯坦人群中的适用性,并比较其敏感性和特异性。方法:横断面研究在巴基斯坦三级保健学术医院进行,包括连续的急性,轻度脑损伤患者。主要结果是“临床上重要的脑损伤”,而次要结果是“需要神经外科干预”。使用卡方对每个变量进行单因素分析,以评估其与CT表现的相关性。计算敏感性、特异性和准确性来评估每个决策规则的性能。结果:本研究中大多数患者的格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)为15分(92.6%)。头痛是最常见的参数(61.7%)。68例(6.7%)患者CT检出具有重要临床意义。只有1个NOC和4个CCHR变量显示与临床意义的CT有统计学意义。CCHR对13-15 GCS的创伤患者检测临床重要ct的敏感性为64%,NOC的敏感性为86%,特异性分别为70%和33%。对于预测是否需要神经外科干预,CCHR和NOC的敏感性分别为61%和85%,特异性分别为68%和32%。结论:CCHR具有更高的特异性和准确性,与NOC相比,CCHR对CT排序率有更大的影响。建议进行进一步研究,以验证这些工具是否适用于巴基斯坦人口。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Canadian computed tomography head rule and New Orleans criteria in mild traumatic brain injury: Comparison at an urban tertiary care facility in Pakistan.

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with road traffic accidents being the predominant cause in Pakistan. Computed tomography (CT) scans have become the cornerstone of investigation for all TBIs, but their widespread use raises concerns about cost-effectiveness, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. This study aimed to validate the applicability of the Canadian CT head rule (CCHR) and New Orleans Criteria (NOC) in the Pakistani population and compare their sensitivity and specificity.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care academic hospital in Pakistan, including consecutive patients with acute, mild brain injury. The primary outcome was "clinically important brain injury," while the secondary outcome was "need for neurosurgical intervention." Univariate analysis using Chi square was performed for each variable to assess association with CT findings. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated to evaluate the performance of each decision rule.

Results: Most of the patients in our study had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 15 (92.6%). Headache was the most common parameter overall (61.7%). Clinically important CT was detected in 68 (6.7%) patients. Only 1 of the NOC and 4 CCHR variables demonstrated statistically significant association with clinically significant CT. The CCHR was 64% sensitive for detecting clinically important CTs in trauma patients with GCS of 13-15, and the NOC was 86% sensitive, with respective specificities of 70% and 33%. For predicting the need for neurosurgical intervention, the sensitivities of CCHR and NOC were 61% and 85%, and specificity was 68% and 32%, respectively.

Conclusion: We concluded that the CCHR was more specific and accurate, and it has the potential to have a greater influence on CT ordering rates than the NOC. Further studies are recommended to validate the tools for the Pakistani population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Intradural extramedullary tuberculoma in a case of disseminated tuberculosis: A case report. Neurosurgery for mental conditions and pain: An historical perspective on the limits of biological determinism. Neurosurgical strategy based on the type of occult spinal dysraphism in omphalocele-exstrophy-imperforate anus-spinal defects complex: A review of 10 cases. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio: A simple and accurate biomarker for the prognosis of patients with intracerebral bleeding, a study of 115 cases. Semi-sitting position and retrosigmoid approach for a large petroclival meningioma resection: 3-dimensional operative video.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1