Evidence Hub

Cranial computed tomography in the emergency evaluation of adult patients without a recent history of head trauma: a prospective analysis

Rothrock SG, Buchanan C, Green SM, Bullard T, Falk JL, Langen M

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 1997

229 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the pattern of nontrauma cranial CT use in an urban ED, to identify the rate of significant CT abnormalities in this setting, and to develop criteria for restricting the ordering of CT scans.

METHODS: A prospective, observational study of a case series of adults who underwent cranial CT scanning for nontraumatic cases was performed at the EDs of an urban teaching hospital and an affiliated community hospital with a combined annual census of 110,000. Clinically significant CT scans were defined as: 1) acute stroke, 2) CNS malignancy, 3) acute hydrocephalus, 4) intracranial bleeding, or 5) intracranial infection. X2 recursive partitioning was used to derive a decision rule to restrict ordering of CT scans.

RESULTS: Only 61 (8%) of 806 CT scans revealed clinically significant abnormalities. The presence of any of the following: age > or = 60 years, focal neurologic deficit, headache with vomiting, or altered mental status, was 100% sensitive (95% CI: 94-100%) and 31% specific (95% CI: 28-33%) in detecting clinically significant CT scans. This set of features had positive and negative predictive values of 11% (95% CI: 8-13%) and 100% (95% CI: 98-100%), respectively. If these criteria had been used to restrict cranial CT use, 229 fewer patients (28%) would have had CT scans obtained and no clinically significant abnormalities would have been missed.

CONCLUSION: Clinically significant CT abnormalities were uncommon in this study population, suggesting that…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 229 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