MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804335207 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.020

UTILIZATION OF COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FOR PEDIATRIC HEAD TRAUMA FROM 2007–2014 IN THE UNITED STATES: BEFORE AND AFTER PECARN CLINICAL DECISION RULES

2018· article· en· W2804335207 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Burstein, Julia Upton, Heloisa Fuzaro Terra, Mark I. Neuman

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentAmbulatoryLogistic regressionComputed tomographyPediatricsHead injuryEmergency medicineHead traumaPediatric traumaDemographicsPoison controlInjury preventionSurgeryDemographyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) clinical prediction rules identify children at low risk of clinically important traumatic brain injury in whom computed tomography (CT) neuro-imaging can safely be avoided. Since publication in 2009, these rules have been externally validated and are widely used in the Emergency Department (ED) assessment of children with acute head trauma. OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine if the proportion of children receiving CT-imaging in US EDs following head trauma has decreased following the development of PECARN rules. DESIGN/METHODS This study was a cross-sectional study using the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey (NHAMCS) database from 2007–2014. NHAMCS collects data on approximately 30,000 nationally representative visits annually to 300 randomly selected U.S EDs. We included all children <18 years old presenting with a chief complaint or discharge diagnosis of head injury. We collected data on patient demographics, reason for ED visit, discharge diagnosis, patient disposition, and use of head CT. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics of CT use, with appropriate weighting to account for the survey methodology. The primary outcome was proportion of children receiving a head CT before and after 2009. RESULTS There were 55,253 paediatric visits during the 8-year study period. Among these, 2,783 (5.3% 95%CI 5.0%-5.6%) met inclusion criteria, representing 12,417,725 paediatric head trauma visits. Median patient age was 6 years (IQR 2–13 years), 62% were male, and a majority were evaluated in non-teaching and non-paediatric hospitals (88% and 90%, respectively). Overall, 32% (95%CI 29%-35%) underwent CT neuroimaging. There was no significant difference in CT use after 2009 (31% after vs. 33% before, p=0.41). Multivariate analysis similarly demonstrated no difference after adjustment for patient age, gender, race, insurance provider, paediatric or teaching hospital, admission status and triage acuity (AOR 1.02 after vs. before, 95%CI 0.79–1.32, p=0.85). Factors associated with increased CT use were age ≥2 years (AOR 1.4, 95%CI 1.1–1.9, p=0.02), admission (AOR 5.3, 95%CI 2.2–12.4, p<0.001), highest triage acuity (AOR 7.3, 95%CI 3.5–15.3, p<0.001) and presentation to a non-teaching (AOR 1.5, 95%CI 1.1–2.2, p=0.02) or non-paediatric (AOR 1.5, 95%CI 1.3–2.8, p<0.01) hospital. CONCLUSION The use of CT neuro-imaging did not decrease in the 5-year period following derivation of PECARN rules. Findings suggest an important need for quality improvement initiatives to ensure appropriate CT utilization among head injured children.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207