From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Emergency Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Another CT Prediction Rule for Head Injury

How sensitive should a rule be?

The New Orleans Criteria and the Canadian CT Head Rule — two externally validated prediction rules for use of computed tomography (CT) in patients with minor head injury — apply only to patients who have had loss of consciousness. Many patients with minor head injury do not have such a history, but clinicians still must decide whether a CT scan is needed. Dutch investigators used risk factors from studies of the two previous prediction rules to develop a more widely applicable rule.

The researchers prospectively enrolled 3181 patients who presented within 24 hours of blunt head injury and who had a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 or 14 or a score of 15 along with at least one risk factor (e.g., vomiting). Head CT performed according to published Dutch guidelines detected intracranial traumatic findings in 7.6% of patients. Overall, 0.5% of patients underwent neurosurgical treatment.

The authors used these findings to develop a prediction rule consisting of 10 major and 8 minor criteria. Internal validation indicated that if only patients with either one major criterion or two minor criteria underwent CT scanning, 96% of lesions would have been detected (sensitivity), and no cases requiring neurosurgical intervention would have been missed. Specificity was 25%. The 4% of lesions that would not have been detected included skull fracture (both depressed and linear), acute subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intraparenchymal bleed.

Comment: Emergency physicians in the U.S. likely would not agree to use a diagnostic scheme that could miss the types of lesions listed above. In fact, most U.S. practitioners would admit patients with these lesions for observation even if neurosurgical treatment were not warranted. Finally, telling patients that they might have bleeding in their brains but that it doesn’t matter is unthinkable.

— J. Stephen Bohan, MD, MS, FACP, FACEP

Published in Journal Watch Emergency Medicine April 27, 2007

Citation(s):

Smits M et al. Predicting intracranial traumatic findings on computed tomography in patients with minor head injury: The CHIP prediction rule. Ann Intern Med 2007 Mar 20; 146:397-405.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Other Perspectives

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2007. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.