The Canadian C-spine rule performs better than unstructured physician judgment
- PMID: 12944893
- DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(03)00422-0
The Canadian C-spine rule performs better than unstructured physician judgment
Abstract
Study objectives: We compare the predictive accuracy of emergency physicians' unstructured clinical judgment to the Canadian C-Spine rule.
Methods: This prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted at 10 Canadian urban academic emergency departments. Included in the study were alert, stable, adult patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and trauma to the head or neck. This was a substudy of the Canadian C-Spine and CT Head Study. Eligible patients were prospectively evaluated before radiography. Physicians estimated the probability of unstable cervical spine injury from 0% to 100% according to clinical judgment alone and filled out a data form. Interobserver assessments were done when feasible. Patients underwent cervical spine radiography or follow-up to determine clinically important cervical spine injuries. Analyses included comparison of areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the kappa coefficient.
Results: During 18 months, 6265 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 36.6 years (range 16 to 97 years), and 50.1% were men. Sixty-four (1%) patients had a clinically important injury. The physicians' kappa for a 0% predicted probability of injury was 0.46 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.65). The respective areas under the ROC curve for predicting cervical spine injury were 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89) for physician judgment and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92) for the Canadian C-Spine rule (P <.05). With a threshold of 0% predicted probability of injury, the respective indices of accuracy for physicians and the Canadian C-Spine rule were sensitivity 92.2% versus 100% (P <.001) and specificity 53.9% versus 44.0% (P <.001).
Conclusion: Interobserver agreement of unstructured clinical judgment for predicting clinically important cervical spine injury is only fair, and the sensitivity is unacceptably low. The Canadian C-Spine rule was better at detecting clinically important injuries with a sensitivity of 100%. Prospective validation has recently been completed and should permit widespread use of the Canadian C-Spine rule.
Comment in
-
The intrinsic fallibility of clinical judgment.Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Sep;42(3):403-4. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(03)00527-4. Ann Emerg Med. 2003. PMID: 12944894 No abstract available.
-
When is zero zero?Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Jun;43(6):788. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.09.029. Ann Emerg Med. 2004. PMID: 15259165 No abstract available.
-
Physical examination can exclude clinically important cervical spine injury.Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Jun;43(6):788-9. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.09.030. Ann Emerg Med. 2004. PMID: 15259166 No abstract available.
-
Picking a winner among decision aids.Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Jun;43(6):789-90; author reply 790-1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.10.055. Ann Emerg Med. 2004. PMID: 15259167 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Retrospective application of the NEXUS low-risk criteria for cervical spine radiography in Canadian emergency departments.Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Apr;43(4):507-14. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.10.036. Ann Emerg Med. 2004. PMID: 15039695
-
The out-of-hospital validation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by paramedics.Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Nov;54(5):663-671.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.03.008. Epub 2009 Apr 24. Ann Emerg Med. 2009. PMID: 19394111
-
Multicentre prospective validation of use of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by triage nurses in the emergency department.CMAJ. 2010 Aug 10;182(11):1173-9. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.091430. Epub 2010 May 10. CMAJ. 2010. PMID: 20457772 Free PMC article.
-
Validity and reliability of clinical prediction rules used to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck: part 2. A systematic review from the Cervical Assessment and Diagnosis Research Evaluation (CADRE) Collaboration.Eur Spine J. 2018 Jun;27(6):1219-1233. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5301-6. Epub 2017 Sep 22. Eur Spine J. 2018. PMID: 28940048
-
Safe cervical spine clearance in adult obtunded blunt trauma patients on the basis of a normal multidetector CT scan--a meta-analysis and cohort study.Injury. 2013 Nov;44(11):1589-95. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.06.005. Epub 2013 Jul 12. Injury. 2013. PMID: 23856632 Review.
Cited by
-
Why do we put cervical collars on conscious trauma patients?Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2009 Sep 18;17:44. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-17-44. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2009. PMID: 19765308 Free PMC article.
-
[Development and first application testing of a new protocol for preclinical spinal immobilization in children : Assessment of indications based on the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric].Unfallchirurg. 2020 Apr;123(4):289-301. doi: 10.1007/s00113-019-00744-y. Unfallchirurg. 2020. PMID: 31768566 German.
-
On-scene treatment of spinal injuries in motor sports.Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017 Apr;43(2):191-200. doi: 10.1007/s00068-016-0749-3. Epub 2016 Dec 22. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017. PMID: 28005155 Review.
-
The use of spinal manipulation to treat an acute on field athletic injury: a case report.J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2016 Jun;60(2):158-63. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2016. PMID: 27385835 Free PMC article.
-
Does Every Patient Require Imaging after Cervical Spine Trauma? A Knowledge Translation Project to Support Evidence-Informed Practice for Physiotherapists.Physiother Can. 2017;69(4):280-289. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2016-32. Physiother Can. 2017. PMID: 30369695 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical