Evidence Hub

Comparison of predictive tools for management of paediatric mild TBI: a prospective cohort study

Fredrik Wickbom, S. Thornberg, J. Sotoca Fernandez, Rasmus Silfver, N. Marklund, J. Undén

EClinicalMedicine, 2025

3,012 participants

Abstract

Summary Background Multiple clinical practice guidelines and head computed tomography decision rules exist for emergency department (ED) triage of children with traumatic brain injury (TBI). These vary in structure, aim, target cohort, and outcomes, yet are used clinically in similar populations. We compared important clinical and practical characteristics of all major guidelines in a large, real-world paediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) cohort. Methods Prospective, pragmatic, observational study of children (94% of the cohort. In a comparative analysis concerning significant cCT findings, the lowest sensitivity estimates were 74.1% (95% CI: 53.7–88.9) for both PECARN ≥2 years and PREDICT ≥2 years; the highest was 100% (95% CI: 87.2–100.0) for SNC16. Specificity ranged from 41.6% (95% CI: 39.8–43.4) for SNC16 to 78.3% (95% CI: 76.8–79.8) for CHALICE. Mandatory cCT rates varied from 1.2% (PREDICT ≥2 years) to 29.9% (CATCH2). Interpretation A head-to-head comparison in a real-world, paediatric, TBI cohort highlights key features of established guidelines and decision rules, offering insight into their comparative diagnostic accuracy, practical application and clinical impact. Funding This work was supported by non-commercial state funding from Södra Sjukvårdsregionen, Vetenskapliga Rådet (Hallands Hospital), and 10.13039/501100009963Forskning och Utveckling Halland.

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: 3,012 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