Evidence Hub

Institutional Variation in Cervical Spine Imaging among Children with Blunt Trauma: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Chaudhari PP, Rogers A, Burger RK, Harding M, Cook LJ, Adelgais K, Browne LR, Corwin D et al.

The Journal of pediatrics, 2026

4,008 participants

Abstract

Objective: To describe institutional variation in use of cervical spine radiographs (x-ray) and computed tomography (CT) among children evaluated following blunt trauma.

Study design: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, observational cohort study of children 0-17 years old evaluated for possible cervical spine injury (CSI) in 18 emergency departments (EDs) from December 2018-October 2021. Our primary outcome was any ED cervical spine x-ray or CT, and our secondary outcome was use of CT only. We performed univariable logistic regression, reporting ED-level unadjusted and injury severity-adjusted proportions of children with any cervical spine imaging and CT only, stratified by presenting ED type (referring general ED vs pediatric ED). Severity adjustment was based on Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network high-risk predictors (Glasgow Coma Scale 3-8, unresponsiveness, abnormal airway/breathing/circulation, and focal neurologic deficits).

Results: We enrolled 22 430 eligible children, of whom 17.9% (n = 4008) were referred from a general ED. Cervical spine x-ray or CT was performed in 52.9% (n = 11 865) and 1.9% (n = 433) were diagnosed with a CSI. After adjusting for severity, imaging proportions were similar within each ED type (referring general EDs and pediatric EDs). Among children whose initial evaluation occurred in a referring general ED, 71.3% underwent any cervical spine imaging and 32.3% underwent CT as the sole modality. Among…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,008 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free