MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W68732928

The impact of introduction of the Canadian CT – head rule on the use of CT-scan on minor head injury patients at Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi

2013· article· en· W68732928 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramadhani Omari Abdalla

Notice bibliographique

RevueeCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHead (geology)Computed tomographyMedicineHead injuryMinor (academic)RadiologyNuclear medicineSurgeryHumanities
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Head injury is a common traumatic condition seen in Kenya. Among the head injury patients seen at the Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi, minor head injury patients are the highest proportion of non–fatal trauma patients. Minor head injury is described as witnessed loss on consciousness, definite amnesia or witnessed disorientation in a patient with a GCS score of 13–15 who has suffered a traumatic event. There has been considerable disagreement about the indication for a Computed Axial Tomography Scan of the Head (CT-head) in the large number of patients clinically classified as minor. The Canadian CT Head Rule was derived as a sensitive decision rule on the use of CT with the aim to standardize and improve the management of patients with minor head injury. The rule comprised of five high risk factors and two moderate risk factors(Appendix 1). At the Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi, there are no protocols that guide the decision making by physicians on when to do a CT-head for patients who have suffered a minor head injury. According to a pilot study done, approximately 96% of patients with minor head injury have a CT–head done.\nObjective: To determine the change in proportion of CT-scan done in patients with minor head injury after introduction of the Canadian CT Head Rule Guide at the Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi. Secondary objectives were to determine the proportion of patients with minor head injury and moderate risk factors according to the Canadian CT Head rule for whom CT was ordered, probability of neurosurgical intervention in patients with minor head injury and their outcomes on follow up.\nStudy design: A Before - After study\nMethod: A total of 84 eligible patients diagnosed with minor head injury were recruited at the Accident and Emergency Department. Forty - two patients were assessed and data on high risk factors and moderate risk factors of the CCHR, Glasgow coma scale, age, management plan and the Glasgow outcome score on follow-up collected with data collection form 1 (see appendix 2) in the 'before' group, thereafter the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) was introduced and another forty-two patients were assessed according to data collection form 2 (see appendix 3).\nResults: The proportions of CT scans done in the 'before' and 'after' groups were 95.2% and 21.4% respectively. The difference of 73.8% between the two groups was statistically significant (CI 0.55 to 0.84).The proportion of patients with moderate risk factors in the 'before' group was 90.5%. This group of patients represents the proportion of patients in the 'before' group who did not require a CT scan. None of the patients required neurosurgical intervention. All patients had good recovery on follow up.\nConclusion: On the basis of the results of this study, there was a statistically and clinically significant difference in the number of CT scans done for patients with minor head injury in the 'before' group at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, compared to the 'after' group. This was associated with no need for neurosurgical intervention and good recovery on follow up as depicted by the Glasgow Outcome Score. This implications of this study will guide physicians on improving management practice of minor head injury patients. Other important implications include avoiding timely and costly transfers from resource scarce or distant areas for CT scan. Moreover this approach will present opportunities to roll out standardized patient care.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,251
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,947

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,216
Écart entre enseignants0,193 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University)Même sujetTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTravaux en français237 207