Effectiveness of Implementing Evidence‐based Interventions to Reduce C‐spine Image Ordering in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Appropriate use of imaging for adult patients with cervical spine (C‐spine) injuries in the emergency department ( ED ) is a longstanding issue. Guidance for C‐spine ordering exists; however, the effectiveness of the decision support implementation in the ED is not well studied. This systematic review examines the implementation and effectiveness of evidence‐based interventions aimed at reducing C‐spine imaging in adults presenting to the ED with neck trauma. Methods Six electronic databases and the gray literature were searched. Comparative intervention studies were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers screened for study eligibility, study quality, and extracted data. The change in imaging was reported using individual odds ratios ( OR s) with 95% confidence intervals ( CI s) using random effects. Results A total of 990 unique citations were screened for relevance of which six before–after studies and one randomized controlled trial were included. None of the studies were assessed as high quality. Interventions consisted primarily of locally developed guidelines or established clinical decision rules such as the NEXUS or the Canadian C‐spine rule. Overall, implementation of interventions aimed at reducing C‐spine image ordering resulted in a statistically significant reduction in imaging ( OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.51–0.93); however, heterogeneity was high (I 2 = 82%). Subgroup analysis revealed no differences between studies that specified enrolling alert and stable patients compared to unspecified trauma (p = 0.81) or between studies employing multifaceted versus nonmultifaceted interventions (p = 0.66). While studies generally provided details on implementation strategies (e.g., teaching sessions, pocket cards, posters, computerized decision support) the effectiveness of these implementation strategies were frequently not reported. Conclusion There is moderate evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to reduce C‐spine image ordering in adult patients seen in the ED with neck trauma. Given the national and international focus on improving appropriateness and reducing unnecessary C‐spine imaging through campaigns such as Choosing Wisely, additional interventional research in this field is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".