Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T10:38:16.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review of the CATCH study: a clinical decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children with minor head injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2015

Christopher Gerdung ,
Shawn Dowling  and
Eddy Lang
Christopher Gerdung*
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON
Shawn Dowling
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Alberta Children's Hospital and Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB
Eddy Lang
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
*
1-128 Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E1; cgerdung@ualberta.ca.

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

brain traumaclinical decision rulecomputed tomographyminor head injurypediatricsreview
Type
Knowledge to Practice • Des connaissances à la pratique
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , July 2012 , pp. 247 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2012

References

REFERENCES

1.Blackwell, CD, Gorelick, M, Holmes, JF, et al. Pediatric head trauma: changes in use of computed tomography in emergency departments in the United States over time. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:320–4, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.09.025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Brenner, DJ, Elliston, CD, Hall, EJ, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:289–96.Google Scholar
3.Berrington de Gonzalez, A, Mahesh, M, Kim, K, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071–7, doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440.Google Scholar
4.Malviya, S, Voepel-Lewis, T, Eldevik, OP, et al. Sedation and general anaesthesia in children undergoing MRI and CT: adverse events and outcomes. Br J Anaesth 2000;84:743–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Brenner, DJ, Hall, EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N EnglMed 2007;357:2277–84, doi:10.1056/NEJMra072149.Google Scholar
6.Derlet, RW, Richards, JR. Overcrowding in the nation’s emergency departments: complex causes and disturbing effects. Ann Emerg Med 2000;35:63–8, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(00)70105-3.Google Scholar
7.Gardner, RL, Sarkar, U, Maselli, JH, et al. Factors associated with longer ED lengths of stay. Am J Emerg Med 2007;25:643–50, doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2006.11.037.Google Scholar
8.Rothenberg, BM, Korn, A. The opportunities and challenges posed by the rapid growth of diagnostic imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2:407–10, doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2005.02.012.Google Scholar
9.Pines, JM. Trends in the rates of radiography use and important diagnoses in emergency department patients with abdominal pain. Med Care 2009;47:782–6, doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819748e9.Google Scholar
10.Wong, KK, Cheung, TW, Tam, PK. Diagnosing acute appendicitis: are we overusing radiologic investigations? J Pediatr Surg 2008;43:2239–41, doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.08.054.Google Scholar
11.Menes, TS, Aufses, AH Jr, Rojas, M, et al. Increased use of computed tomography does not harm patients with acute appendicitis. Am Surg 2006;72:326–9.Google Scholar
12.Klassen, TP, Reed, MH, Stiell, IG, et al. Variation in utilization of computed tomography scanning for the investigation of minor head trauma in children: a Canadian experience. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:739–44, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb02260.x.Google Scholar
13.Stiell, IG, Wells, GA. Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:437–447.Google Scholar
14.McGinn, TG, Guyatt, GH, Wyer, PC, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXII: How to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA 2000;284:79–84, doi:10.1001/jama.284.1.79.Google Scholar
15.Haydel, MJ, Shembekar, AD. Prediction of intracranial injury in children aged five years and older with loss of consciousness after minor head injury due to nontrivial mechanisms. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42:507–14, doi:10.1067/S0196-0644(03)00512-2.Google Scholar
16.Palchak, MJ, Holmes, JF, Vance, CW, et al. A decision rule for identifying children at low risk for brain injuries after blunt head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42:492–506, doi:10.1067/S0196-0644(03)00425-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Oman, JA, Cooper, RJ, Holmes, JF, et al. Performance of a decision rule to predict need for computed tomography among children with blunt head trauma. Pediatrics 2006;117:e238–46, doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Dunning, J, Daly, JP, Lomas, JP, et al. Derivation of the children’s head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events decision rule for head injury in children. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:885–91, doi:10.1136/adc.2005.083980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Atabaki, SM, Stiell, IG, Bazarian, JJ, et al. A clinical decision rule for cranial computed tomography in minor pediatric head trauma. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:439–45, doi:10.1001/archpedi.162.5.439.Google Scholar
20.Maguire, JL, Boutis, K, Uleryk, EM, et al. Should a headinjured child receive a head CT scan? A systematic review of clinical prediction rules. Pediatrics 2009;124:e145–54, doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Kuppermann, N, Holmes, JF, Dayan, PS, et al. Identifying children at very low risk of clinically-important traumatic brain injuries after blunt head trauma. Lancet 2009;374:1160–70, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61558-0.Google Scholar