Immobilization protocols for the treatment of cervical spine fracture: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Current protocols on cervical immobilization postcervical spine fracture are widely accepted in the acute rehabilitation of older adults, however consensus on its overall effectiveness remains lacking. PURPOSE: Summarize information from original studies on available cervical immobilization protocols following a cervical fracture and to answer the questions; Which types of study designs have been used to assess the effectiveness of these protocols? What are the currently reported cervical immobilization protocols following cervical fracture in adults? What is the effectiveness of these protocols? What adverse events are associated with these protocols? STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE: Searches were performed on the following online databases from inception to February 23, 2023: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. Databases were searched for articles pertaining to collar use post cervical spine fracture. OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness of the cervical fracture immobilization protocols was the primary outcome, examined by various measures including union rates and disability indexes. METHODS: 4 databases were searched; EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) beginning on February 23, 2023, where 5,127 studies were yielded and 32 were extracted based on studies of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of a cervical fracture (C0-C7) managed with a rigid external orthosis to prevent instability and surgery (collar, or cervicothoracic orthosis). Risk of bias was assessed using the guidelines set out by the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: This scoping review yielded low-level prospective (18%) and retrospective (69%) cohort studies, case-control studies (3%), and case series (6%) from 1987 to 2022, patient age ranged from 14 to 104 years. Findings were difficult to summarize based on the lack of randomized controlled trials, leading to no clear conclusions drawn on the presence of standardized cervical immobilization protocols with no information on the duration of treatment or transition in care. Most included articles were retrospective cohort studies of poor to moderate quality, which have significant risk of bias for intervention questions. The effectiveness of these protocols remains unclear as most studies evaluated heterogeneous outcomes and did not present between-group differences. Mortality, musculoskeletal (MSK) complications, and delayed surgery were common adverse events associated with cervical collar use. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights the need for higher levels of evidence as there is currently no standardized immobilization protocol for cervical spine fractures as a primary treatment, the effectiveness of cervical immobilization protocols is unclear, and mortality, MSK complications, and delayed surgery are common adverse events. No sources of funding were used for this scoping review.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».