Overuse of computed tomography for mild head injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) scan is a common imaging technique used to evaluate the severity of a head injury. The overuse of diagnostic interventions in the health system is a growing concern worldwide. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the rate of CT scan overuse in cases of mild head injury. METHODS: Eligibility criteria: We encompassed observational studies-either designed as cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional investigations-that reported on CT scan overuse rates for mild head injuries. Studies had to be published in peer-reviewed, English-language sources and provide full content access Information sources: Web of Sciences, Scopus, Medline via PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until April 1, 2023. Studies were included if reporting the overuse of CT scans for mild head injuries using validated criteria. Risk of bias: We used the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool to evaluate the risk bias assessment of included studies. Two independent reviewers evaluated the eligibility of studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Synthesis of results: Overuse estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate any sources of heterogeneity. Point rate of overuse of CT scans for mild head injuries was the main outcome measured as percentage point estimates with corresponding 95% CIs. RESULTS: Included studies: Of the 913 potentially relevant studies identified, eight studies were selected for the final analysis. Synthesis of results: The pooled rate of CT scan overuse in patients with mild head injury was found to be 27% [95% CI: 16-43; I2 = 99%]. The rate of CT scan overuse in mild head injury cases varied depending on the criteria used. The rate of CT scan overuse was 37% [95% CI: 32-42; I2 = 0%] with the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), 30% [95% CI: 16-49; I2 = 99%] with the Canadian computed tomography head rule, and 10% [95% CI: 8-14; I2 = 0%] with the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network criterion (PERCAN). Based on subgroup analyses, the rate of CT scan overuse in mild head injury cases was observed to be 30% with the Canadian computed tomography head rule criterion, 43% with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence criterion, and 18% with the New Orleans criterion. CONCLUSION: Limitations of evidence: The restricted number of included studies may impact generalizability. High heterogeneity was observed, leading to subgroup analyses based on age, assessment criteria, and study region. Absent data on overuse causes hinders drawing conclusions on contributing factors. Furthermore, this study solely addressed overuse rates, not associated harm or benefits. Interpretation: The overuse of CT scans in mild head injury patients is concerning, as it can result in unnecessary radiation exposure and higher healthcare costs. Clinicians and policymakers should prioritize the implementation of guidelines to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure, healthcare costs, and potential harm to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO under the identification code CRD42023416080. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023416080.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».