Original Article
The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria in Patients with Trauma
N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2510-2518December 25, 2003
- Abstract
Background
The Canadian C-Spine (cervical-spine) Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Low-Risk Criteria (NLC) are decision rules to guide the use of cervical-spine radiography in patients with trauma. It is unclear how the two decision rules compare in terms of clinical performance.
Methods
We conducted a prospective cohort study in nine Canadian emergency departments comparing the CCR and NLC as applied to alert patients with trauma who were in stable condition. The CCR and NLC were interpreted by 394 physicians for patients before radiography.
Results
Among the 8283 patients, 169 (2.0 percent) had clinically important cervical-spine injuries. In 845 (10.2 percent) of the patients, physicians did not evaluate range of motion as required by the CCR algorithm. In analyses that excluded these indeterminate cases, the CCR was more sensitive than the NLC (99.4 percent vs. 90.7 percent, P<0.001) and more specific (45.1 percent vs. 36.8 percent, P<0.001) for injury, and its use would have resulted in lower radiography rates (55.9 percent vs. 66.6 percent, P<0.001). In secondary analyses that included all patients, the sensitivity and specificity of CCR, assuming that the indeterminate cases were all positive, were 99.4 percent and 40.4 percent, respectively (P<0.001 for both comparisons with the NLC). Assuming that the CCR was negative for all indeterminate cases, these rates were 95.3 percent (P=0.09 for the comparison with the NLC) and 50.7 percent (P=0.001). The CCR would have missed 1 patient and the NLC would have missed 16 patients with important injuries.
Conclusions
For alert patients with trauma who are in stable condition, the CCR is superior to the NLC with respect to sensitivity and specificity for cervical-spine injury, and its use would result in reduced rates of radiography.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
The Canadian C-Spine Rule.Table 1
The NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria.Article Activity
- Article
Emergency departments in the United States and Canada annually treat more than 13 million patients with trauma who are at risk for cervical-spine injury.1 Very few of these patients have a cervical-spine fracture, and the current pattern of use of radiography is not efficient.2-11 There is considerable variation in published guidelines and also among physicians with respect to the use of radiography.12-15 Cervical-spine radiography is a “little-ticket” item — a low-cost procedure that adds substantially to health care costs because of the high volume of its use.16,17 Furthermore, patients are often immobilized on a backboard for many hours while awaiting radiography, leading to considerable discomfort and unnecessary use of space in crowded emergency departments.18-20
A clinical-decision rule is derived from original research and is defined as a decision-making tool that incorporates three or more variables from the history, examination, or simple tests.21-25 Two decision rules have been developed independently to permit more selective ordering of cervical-spine radiography, more rapid ruling out of injury to the cervical spine for patients, and substantial health care savings. The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Low-Risk Criteria (NLC) include five items (Table 1Table 1
The NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria.) and were first described in 1992.27,28 A subsequent validation study in the United States involving 34,069 patients with trauma showed that the NLC had a sensitivity of 99.6 percent and a specificity of 12.9 percent for cervical-spine injury.26,29 This rule has been recommended for use by emergency department physicians.13,14 More recently, our group developed the Canadian C-Spine (cervical-spine) Rule (CCR), for use with alert patients in stable condition, by evaluating 8924 cases.30-32 This rule is based on three high-risk criteria, five low-risk criteria, and the ability of patients to rotate their necks (Figure 1Figure 1
The Canadian C-Spine Rule.). The goal of the current study was to compare prospectively the accuracy, reliability, clinical acceptability, and potential effect of the CCR and the NLC in alert patients with trauma who were in stable condition — an important step before using a decision rule in actual patient care.Methods
Study Population
This prospective cohort study was conducted in the emergency departments of nine Canadian tertiary care hospitals. (The hospitals that were the sites for this study are listed in the Appendix.) We considered for enrollment consecutive adults (defined as persons 16 years old or older) with acute trauma to the head or neck who were both in stable condition and alert and who had either neck pain or no neck pain but met all of the following criteria: they had visible injury above the clavicles, were nonambulatory, and who had a dangerous mechanism of injury. Additional eligibility criteria were a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 out of 15 (3 is the low end of the scale, and 15 indicates alert and oriented), normal vital signs as defined by the Revised Trauma Score (a combined score based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate),12 and injury within the previous 48 hours. Patients were ineligible if they were under the age of 16 years; had penetrating neck trauma, acute paralysis, or known vertebral disease; had been evaluated previously for the same injury; or were pregnant. The research ethics board at each participating institution approved the study and waived the requirement for written informed consent.
Assessments
All assessments of the patients were made by attending or resident emergency medicine physicians, who were trained by means of a one-hour lecture session that did not involve testing of knowledge. After assessment and before radiography, the physicians recorded their findings and interpretations of the rules on data forms. The wording of the NLC was finalized with consultation and approval from the NEXUS investigators (Table 1).26 When feasible, some patients were assessed independently by a second emergency medicine physician, and interobserver agreement was determined.
Outcome Measures
The primary outcome, clinically important cervical-spine injury, was defined a priori as any fracture, dislocation, or ligamentous instability demonstrated by imaging. All injuries were considered clinically important unless radiography demonstrated one of the following isolated clinically unimportant fractures: osteophyte avulsion, a transverse process not involving a facet joint, a spinous process not involving lamina, or simple vertebral compression of less than 25 percent of body height. This definition had been standardized previously on the basis of a formal survey of 129 spine surgeons, neuroradiologists, and emergency physicians.33 Patients underwent standard plain radiography according to the judgment of the treating physicians, who were cautioned not to order radiography according to the decision rules. Radiographs were interpreted by staff radiologists who were provided with routine clinical information but not the contents of the data forms. Additional views and investigations were ordered at the discretion of the treating physician. All patients with an identified injury underwent computed tomographic (CT) scanning.
We could not request radiography for all patients, since the practice at the study hospitals was that only 70 percent of eligible patients (those who met the study criteria) routinely underwent cervical-spine imaging. Consequently, patients who did not undergo radiography were evaluated with the use of the Proxy Outcome Assessment Tool. A study nurse contacted these patients by telephone and classified them as having no cervical-spine injury if they met all four of the following criteria at 14 days: mild neck pain or none, mild neck-movement restriction or none, neck collar not used, and a return to usual occupational activities. Patients who did not fulfill these criteria were recalled for cervical-spine radiography. The validity of these criteria to rule out acute cervical-spine injury had previously been determined by having the questionnaire applied to a random sample of patients in a derivation study who had all undergone radiography.34 The criteria were 100 percent sensitive for identifying 66 cases of cervical-spine injury among 389 patients.
Statistical Analysis
The performance of the two rules in classifying patients according to whether or not they had acute cervical-spine injury was assessed for sensitivity and specificity. The final interpretation of the rules (i.e., whether the outcome was positive or negative for injury) was made by an adjudication committee, which reviewed the patients' medical records and the physicians' responses to the data forms. Interobserver agreement for each variable and for interpretation of the rules was measured with the kappa coefficient. All reported P values are two-tailed. Proportions were compared between the CCR and NLC by means of unadjusted chi-square analysis. We estimated that a sample of 8000 patients would be required to yield 120 cases of clinically important injury.
Results
From May 1999 to April 2002, 8283 eligible patients were enrolled and had complete outcome assessments; an additional 3603 eligible patients were not enrolled by the physicians, and another 635 had data forms but no outcome assessments. A total of 394 physicians participated. Table 2Table 2
Characteristics of the 8283 Study Patients. and Table 3Table 3
Univariate Correlation and Kappa Values for Individual Variables in the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria and the Canadian C-Spine Rule, According to the Presence or Absence of Clinically Important Cervical-Spine Injury. show the characteristics of the study patients; 169 (2.0 percent) had clinically important cervical-spine injuries, all of which were identified in the emergency department without the use of the Proxy Outcome Assessment Tool. The characteristics of the eligible patients who were not enrolled were almost identical to those of the enrolled patients. The characteristics of the 635 patients without outcome assessments were similar to those of the enrolled subjects, but this group did not undergo radiography.In 845 patients (10.2 percent), physicians did not evaluate range of motion, as required by the CCR; therefore, the CCR assessment for these patients was later categorized by the investigators as “indeterminate.” The characteristics of these 845 patients were very similar to those of the other enrolled patients except for higher rates of radiography (98.8 percent) and lower rates of injury (0.8 percent) — probably reflecting a cautious approach by physicians who were not comfortable testing range of motion in some cases. Seven of these 845 patients had clinically important cervical-spine injuries, and 4 were transferred with “presumed cervical-spine fracture.”
The accuracy of the two rules is compared in Table 4Table 4
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Negative Predictive Value of the Two Rules for 162 Cases of “Clinically Important” Injury among 7438 Patients. for 7438 cases, excluding the 845 indeterminate cases. The sensitivity of the CCR was 99.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 96 to 100), as compared with 90.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 85 to 94; P<0.001) for the NLC. The respective specificities were 45.1 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 44 to 46) and 36.8 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 36 to 38; P<0.001). For 45 cases of clinically unimportant injuries, the sensitivity of the CCR was 97.8 percent, as compared with 80.0 percent for the NLC.We performed secondary analyses involving all 8283 patients to determine the potential effect of indeterminate cases. When the CCR was assumed to be positive for all indeterminate cases, the sensitivity was 99.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 96 to 100), as compared with 90.5 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 85 to 94) for the NLC; the specificities were 40.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 39 to 42) and 33.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 33 to 35), respectively (P<0.001 for both comparisons). When the CCR was assumed to be negative for all indeterminate cases, the sensitivity was 95.3 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 91 to 97; P=0.09) and the specificity was 50.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 50 to 52; P=0.001).
Table 5Table 5
Characteristics of Patients with Cervical-Spine Injury Not Identified by Decision Rules. displays the characteristics of potentially missed cases. The single important case not identified by the CCR involved a man (Patient 4) who was injured in a motor vehicle collision but who could still walk and whose radiographs at the initial emergency department visit were normal. He returned one week later, CT scanning was performed, and he was found to have a type II odontoid fracture. The patient was assessed by a neurosurgeon, prescribed a hard collar, discharged directly home, and had no sequelae at a follow-up visit one year later. Of the other 15 cases not identified by the NLC, 14 met one or more CCR criteria and 1 was indeterminate.The kappa value for interobserver agreement in the interpretation of the overall rules in 142 cases was 0.63 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.49 to 0.77) for the CCR and 0.47 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.65) for the NLC. A value greater than 0.60 is generally considered to reflect reasonable agreement.
Clinical acceptability was assessed in two ways. On a five-point Likert scale (ranging from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable”), physicians indicated that they would have been “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” in applying the CCR in 8.0 percent of cases and in applying the NLC in 7.1 percent (P=0.03). Physicians misinterpreted the rules as not requiring radiography on the data forms, in contrast to the interpretation of the subsequent investigator that radiography was indicated, in 5.2 percent of cases evaluated with the use of the CCR (which could, theoretically, have led to 8 missed injuries) and 2.9 percent of those evaluated with the use of the NLC (which could have led to 14 missed injuries).
The potential effect on radiography was evaluated by estimating the proportion of patients who would require radiography according to the rules. For the CCR, the rate was 55.9 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 55 to 57), and for the NLC, 66.6 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 66 to 68; P<0.001). Secondary analyses that included the 845 indeterminate cases yielded potential radiography rates of 66.6 percent for the NLC, 50.2 percent if the indeterminate cases were considered to be negative according to the CCR, and 60.4 percent if the indeterminate cases were considered to be positive according to the CCR. The potential effect on crowding in the emergency department was assessed by determining the mean length of stay in the emergency department for patients without injury. The mean length of stay for the 4608 patients who underwent radiography was 232.9 minutes, as compared with 123.2 minutes for the 1997 patients who did not undergo radiography (P<0.001).
Discussion
We found that the CCR was highly sensitive for clinically important cervical-spine injuries, identifying 161 of 162 cases in patients in whom the range of motion was evaluated. If the findings of the original derivation and current validation studies were combined, involving 16,363 patients, the CCR would have identified 312 of 313 clinically important cases, a sensitivity of 99.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 98 to 100).30 In contrast, the NLC had lower sensitivity than previously demonstrated, essentially missing 1 in 10 important injuries. Our results also showed the CCR to be more specific than the NLC and, consequently, likely to have a greater effect in reducing unnecessary use of radiography and the need for immobilization. These findings raise questions about the safety and efficiency of applying the NLC in clinical practice.
The reliability of the physicians' interpretations appeared to favor the CCR over the NLC. However, physicians were slightly less comfortable and accurate using the CCR, and the potential effect of the CCR was diminished by the fact that range of motion was not always evaluated. We believe this happened primarily because some physicians were not always comfortable testing range of motion. For some physicians, this was a new procedure, and we note that the rate of indeterminate cases was highest during the first seven months of the study, reflecting an apparent learning curve. Secondary analyses incorporating indeterminate cases indicated that the CCR might have a lower sensitivity than suggested by the main analyses, although sensitivity still remained high, and specificity remained significantly higher than that of the NLC.
This prospective validation study was designed and conducted according to strict methodologic standards.21,22,35-37 The outcome, clinically important cervical-spine injury, was carefully defined and is of considerable clinical importance. Patients were selected according to strict criteria rather than on the basis of subjective decisions by physicians to order radiography. A large number of patients with injuries reflecting a wide spectrum of severity were enrolled, but children were excluded, because we believe that pediatric cases require distinct criteria. Also evaluated were other important measures in addition to accuracy, including interobserver agreement, clinical acceptability, and potential effect on practice.
This study has limitations, although most apply equally to both rules. Although not all eligible patients were enrolled, no selection bias could be detected, and the characteristics of enrolled and nonenrolled patients were similar. Some patients could not be reached for follow-up, but it is highly unlikely that any of these patients had a missed injury because none returned to the treating hospital or any other local neurosurgical center. A small proportion of patients had been transferred to the participating hospital, and it could be argued that physicians already knew that these patients had cervical-spine injury. However, less than 20 percent of transferred patients ultimately proved to have a cervical-spine injury.
Some may be concerned about the use of clinically important cervical-spine injury as the primary outcome, although it was applied equally to both rules. There has been very good acceptance of this definition by Canadian academic spine surgeons, neuroradiologists, and emergency department physicians, who consider it pragmatic and safe. Furthermore, the CCR was more sensitive than the NLC for clinically unimportant injuries.
Not all study patients underwent radiography, because the Canadian clinicians in the study often do not order imaging when they consider patients to be at low risk for spinal injury. Patients were classified as having “no important injury” only if they satisfied all criteria on the 14-day, Proxy Outcome Assessment Tool, which was conducted by telephone, has been validated, and was used equally for both rules.
Some cases were indeterminate on the CCR and could not be included in the primary analysis because the data forms did not include a physician's assessment of range of motion. Secondary analyses suggest that the study findings are robust except in the unlikely scenario that all indeterminate cases would have been classified as negative with the use of the CCR; in contrast, virtually all these patients were sent for radiography. Failure to assess range of motion in low-risk patients represents a cautious approach by some physicians, and this reluctance may be overcome by reassuring physicians that such an assessment is safe.
There was a slightly higher rate of misinterpretation for the CCR, which may reflect the fact that this rule is more complex. However, the misinterpretation rates were low for both rules.
There are several factors that may account for the current findings of lower sensitivity for the NLC than was reported earlier.26 First, the NLC were derived from a modest study of 27 cases of fracture among 974 patients and, when first reported in 1992, were based on only four criteria.27 The fifth, “no focal neurological deficit,” was added at a later date without supporting evidence. The degree of interobserver agreement on the NLC variables was not evaluated until several years later.28 The data from the CCR derivation and validation studies raise questions about the accuracy and reproducibility of some NLC findings — namely “no distracting painful injuries,” “no evidence of intoxication,” and “no focal neurological deficit.”30
Second, the criteria for selecting patients were quite different in the NLC studies, which included infants and children, as well as patients with clouded consciousness and multiple trauma, and which enrolled only patients for whom radiography was ordered by a physician. There were no explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria that could be easily applied in other settings.
Third, the difference in the performance of the two rules should not be surprising, since the component clinical findings are quite different. One potential concern is whether the Canadian physicians, being more familiar with the CCR, could have unconsciously biased their responses to favor the Canadian rule. We believe this is unlikely. The NLC were accurately presented on the data forms after considerable discussion with the NEXUS investigators, although it remains possible that the Canadian physicians' interpretation of some of these criteria differed from that of their U.S. counterparts. Altered level of alertness was not assessed, since this was an explicit exclusion criterion. Furthermore, the responses for all cases were reviewed for accuracy by the adjudication committee. In particular, the 25 cases of clinically important or clinically unimportant injury that the NLC failed to identify were carefully reviewed, and the findings were determined to be accurate. These study results are very similar to those of a Canadian retrospective validation study that showed the NLC to have low sensitivity.38
Our study confirmed the high sensitivity, reliability, and clinical acceptability of the CCR but failed to do so for the NLC. In some cases, physicians failed to evaluate range of motion as required by the CCR — an omission that, depending on how indeterminate results were handled, might slightly lower the sensitivity or specificity of the CCR in practice. Nevertheless, the CCR has the potential to standardize practice and improve efficiency in the use of cervical-spine radiography in most emergency departments. This could lead to substantial health care savings as well as reduced periods of immobilization in crowded emergency departments.
Supported by peer-reviewed grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MT-13700) and the Ontario Ministry of Health Emergency Health Services Committee (11996N). Dr. Stiell holds a Distinguished Investigator Award, Dr. Schull holds a New Investigator Award, and Dr. Rowe holds a Canada Research Chair, all from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
We are indebted to Katherine Vandemheen and Andreas Laupacis for planning and assistance with earlier phases of the study; to study nurses Erica Battram, Kim Bradbury, Pamela Sheehan, Taryn MacKenzie, Kathy Bowes, Karen Code, Ann Zerdin, Virginia Blak-Genoway, Evelyn Gilkinson, Sharon Mason, Percy MacKerricher, Jan Buchanan, Jackie Miller, and Terry Shewchuk; to MyLinh Tran and Emily Moen for data management; to Irene Harris for assistance in the preparation of the manuscript; to all the nurses and clerks at the study sites who assisted with case identification and data collection; and to the many staff physicians and residents who patiently completed thousands of data-collection forms and without whose voluntary assistance this study would not have been possible.
Source Information
From the Departments of Emergency Medicine (I.G.S., J.R.W., G.G., M.R.) and Epidemiology and Community Medicine (G.A.W.), the Clinical Epidemiology Program (C.M.C.), and the Division of Neurosurgery (H.L.), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; the Division of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (R.D.M., I.M.); the Department of Emergency Medicine, Queens University, Kingston, Ont. (R.B.); the Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto (M.J.S., D.C., J.S.L., G.B.); the Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton (B.H.R., B.H.); and the Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London (M.A.E., J.D.) — all in Canada.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Stiell at the Clinical Epidemiology Unit, F657, Ottawa Health Research Institute, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Appendix
The following hospitals participated in the study: Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ont.; Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, Ottawa, Ont.; Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, Ottawa, Ont.; Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, B.C.; Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto; Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, B.C.; University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alta.; St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto; and London Health Sciences Centre, Victoria Campus, London, Ont.
- References
References
1
McCaig LF, Ly N. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2000 emergency department summary. Advance data from vital and health statistics. No. 326. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 2002. (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 2002-1250 02-0259.)
2
Reid DC ,Henderson R ,Saboe L ,Miller JDR . Etiology and clinical course of missed spine fractures. J Trauma 1987;27:980-986
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Diliberti T ,Lindsey RW . Evaluation of the cervical spine in the emergency setting: who does not need an X-ray? Orthopedics 1992;15:179-183
Web of Science | Medline4
Bachulis BL ,Long WB ,Hynes GD ,Johnson MC . Clinical indications for cervical spine radiographs in the traumatized patient. Am J Surg 1987;153:473-478
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Fischer RP . Cervical radiographic evaluation of alert patients following blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1984;13:905-907
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Gbaanador GBM ,Fruin AH ,Taylon C . Role of routine emergency cervical radiography in head trauma. Am J Surg 1986;152:643-648
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Bayless P ,Ray VG . Incidence of cervical spine injuries in association with blunt head trauma. Am J Emerg Med 1989;7:139-142
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Neifeld GL ,Keene JG ,Hevesy G ,Leikin J ,Proust A ,Thisted RA . Cervical injury in head trauma. J Emerg Med 1988;6:203-207
CrossRef | Medline9
Vandemark RM . Radiology of the cervical spine in trauma patients: practice pitfalls and recommendations for improving efficiency and communication. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:465-472
Web of Science | Medline10
Roberge RJ . Facilitating cervical spine radiography in blunt trauma. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1991;9:733-742
Medline11
Daffner RH . Cervical radiography in the emergency department: who, when, how extensive? J Emerg Med 1993;11:619-620
CrossRef | Medline12
Advanced trauma life support instructor manual. 6th ed. Chicago: American College of Surgeons, 1997.
13
Tintinalli JE, Kelen GD, Stapczynski JS. Emergency medicine: a comprehensive study guide. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
14
Marx JA, ed. Rosen's emergency medicine: concepts and clinical practice. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2002.
15
Stiell IG ,Wells GA ,Vandemheen K , et al. Variation in emergency department use of cervical spine radiography for alert, stable trauma patients. CMAJ 1997;156:1537-1544
Web of Science | Medline16
Moloney TW ,Rogers DE . Medical technology -- a different view of the contentious debate over costs. N Engl J Med 1979;301:1413-1419
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline17
Angell M . Cost containment and the physician. JAMA 1985;254:1203-1207
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Schull MJ ,Slaughter PM ,Redelmeier DA . Urban emergency department overcrowding: defining the problem and eliminating misconceptions. Can J Emerg Med 2002;4:76-8319
Chan BT, Schull MJ, Schultz SE. Emergency department services in Ontario 1993-2000. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2001.
20
Lindsay P, Bronskill S, Schull MJ, Chan BTB, Anderson GM. Clinical utilization and outcomes. In: Brown AD, ed. Hospital report 2001: emergency department care. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association, 2001:29-47.
21
Laupacis A ,Sekar N ,Stiell JG . Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997;277:488-494
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Stiell IG ,Wells GA . Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:437-447
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Stiell IG ,Greenberg GH ,McKnight RD , et al. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 1993;269:1127-1132
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Stiell IG ,Wells GA ,Hoag RA , et al. Implementation of the Ottawa Knee Rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA 1997;278:2075-2079
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Stiell IG ,Wells GA ,Vandemheen K , et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001;357:1391-1396
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Hoffman JR ,Mower WR ,Wolfson AB ,Todd KH ,Zucker MI . Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. N Engl J Med 2000;343:94-99[Erratum, N Engl J Med 2001;344:464.]
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline27
Hoffman JR ,Schriger DL ,Mower W ,Luo JS ,Zucker M . Low-risk criteria for cervical-spine radiography in blunt trauma: a prospective study. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:1454-1460
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Mahadevan S ,Mower WR ,Hoffman JR ,Peeples N ,Goldberg W ,Sonner R . Interrater reliability of cervical spine injury criteria in patients with blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1998;31:197-201
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
Hoffman JR ,Wolfson AB ,Todd K ,Mower WR . Selective cervical spine radiography in blunt trauma: methodology of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS). Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:461-469
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Stiell IG ,Wells GA ,Vandemheen K , et al. The Canadian C-Spine Rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA 2001;286:1841-1848
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Stiell IG ,Wells GA ,McKnight RD , et al. Canadian C-Spine Rule study for alert and stable trauma patients. I. Background and rationale. Can J Emerg Med 2002;4:84-9032
Stiell IG ,Wells GA ,McKnight RD , et al. Canadian C-Spine Rule study for alert and stable trauma patients. II. Study objectives and methodology. Can J Emerg Med 2002;4:185-19333
Stiell IG ,Lesiuk HJ ,Vandemheen K , et al. Obtaining consensus for a definition of “clinically important cervical spine injury“ in the CCC Study. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:435-435 abstract.34
Vandemheen K ,Stiell IG ,Brison R , et al. Validity evaluation of the cervical spine injury Proxy Outcome Assessment Tool in the CCC Study. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:434-434 abstract.35
Wasson JH ,Sox HC ,Neff RK ,Goldman L . Clinical prediction rules: application and methodological standards. N Engl J Med 1985;313:793-799
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline36
Feinstein AR. Clinimetrics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987.
37
McGinn TG ,Guyatt GH ,Wyer PC ,Naylor CD ,Stiell IG ,Richardson WS . Users' guides to the medical literature. XXII. How to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA 2000;284:79-84
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline38
Dickinson G, Stiell IG, Schull M, et al. Retrospective application of the NEXUS low-risk criteria for cervical spine radiography in Canadian emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med (in press).
- Citing Articles (87)
Citing Articles
1
R. Stieger, D. Oertle, C. Beynon, B. Maggi. (2012) HWS-Trauma im Alter: keine Bagatelle. Manuelle Medizin
CrossRef2
Kiran Sheikh, Lily M. Belfi, Rahul Sharma, Michael Baad, Pina C. Sanelli. (2012) Evaluation of acute cervical spine imaging based on ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Emergency Radiology 19:1, 11-17
CrossRef3
Gabrielle van der Velde. 2011. Whiplash. , 669-674.
CrossRef4
Arnaud Robitaille. (2011) Airway management in the patient with potential cervical spine instability: Continuing Professional Development. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
CrossRef5
M. Kreuder. (2011) Präklinische HWS-Immobilisation auf Grundlage der „Canadian C-Spine Rule“. Notfall + Rettungsmedizin 14:6, 497-499
CrossRef6
David M. Panczykowski, Nestor D. Tomycz, David O. Okonkwo. (2011) Comparative effectiveness of using computed tomography alone to exclude cervical spine injuries in obtunded or intubated patients: meta-analysis of 14,327 patients with blunt trauma. Journal of Neurosurgery 115:3, 541-549
CrossRef7
Fariborz Ghaffarpasand, Shahram Paydar, Mehdi Foroughi, Ali Saberi, Hamidreza Abbasi, Ali Asghar Karimi, Babak Malekpoor, Sam Zeraatian, Mohammad Vahid Hosseini, Shahram Bolandparvaz, Maryam Dehghankhalili. (2011) Role of cervical spine radiography in the initial evaluation of stable high-energy blunt trauma patients. Journal of Orthopaedic Science 16:5, 498-502
CrossRef8
Brian J. Krabak, Samantha L. Kanarek. (2011) Cervical Spine Pain in the Competitive Athlete. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 22:3, 459-471
CrossRef9
Therèse M. Duane, Sean P. Wilson, Julie Mayglothling, Luke G. Wolfe, Michel B. Aboutanos, James F. Whelan, Ajai K. Malhotra, Rao R. Ivatury. (2011) Canadian Cervical Spine Rule Compared With Computed Tomography: A Prospective Analysis. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 71:2, 352-357
CrossRef10
H. Corraze, P. Ponset, J. Levraut. (2011) Un traumatisme cervical inaperçu après un malaise chez un marathonien. Annales françaises de médecine d'urgence 1:4, 270-274
CrossRef11
Yoshihiro Aoi, Gaku Inagawa, Kozo Hashimoto, Hideo Tashima, Sayaka Tsuboi, Takeshi Takahata, Kyota Nakamura, Takahisa Goto. (2011) Airway Scope Laryngoscopy Under Manual Inline Stabilization and Cervical Collar Immobilization: A Crossover In Vivo Cinefluoroscopic Study. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 71:1, 32-36
CrossRef12
John M. O'Neill, Elan Jeremitsky. 2011. The Geriatric Trauma Patient. , 228-250.
CrossRef13
Christopher R. Carpenter, Bobby DesPain, Travis N. Keeling, Mansi Shah, Morgan Rothenberger. (2011) The Six-Item Screener and AD8 for the Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Emergency Department Patients. Annals of Emergency Medicine 57:6, 653-661
CrossRef14
Therèse M. Duane, Julie Mayglothling, Sean P. Wilson, Luke G. Wolfe, Michel B. Aboutanos, James F. Whelan, Ajai K. Malhotra, Rao R. Ivatury. (2011) National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Criteria Is Inadequate to Rule Out Fracture After Significant Blunt Trauma Compared With Computed Tomography. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 70:4, 829-831
CrossRef15
Seen Chung, Angelo Mikrogianakis, Paul W. Wales, Peter Dirks, Manohar Shroff, Ash Singhal, Vincent Grant, B. J. Hancock, David Creery, Jeff Atkinson, Dickens St-Vil, Louis Crevier, Natalie Yanchar, Allen Hayashi, Vivek Mehta, Timothy Carey, Sonny Dhanani, Ron Siemens, Sheila Singh, Dave Price. (2011) Trauma Association of Canada Pediatric Subcommittee National Pediatric Cervical Spine Evaluation Pathway: Consensus Guidelines. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 70:4, 873-884
CrossRef16
James T. Quann, Richard A. Sidwell. (2011) Imaging of the Cervical Spine in Injured Patients. Surgical Clinics of North America 91:1, 209-216
CrossRef17
Paul Reynolds, Joseph A. Scattoloni, Peter Ehrlich, Franklyn P. Cladis, Peter J. Davis. 2011. Anesthesia for the Pediatric Trauma Patient. , 971-1002.
CrossRef18
Shane Koppenhaver, Timothy Flynn. 2011. Physical examination. , 30-44.
CrossRef19
Bryan S. Dennison, Michael H. Leal. 2011. Mechanical neck pain. , 94-111.
CrossRef20
Michael J. Klevens, Robert M. McNamara. 2011. Cervical spine and spinal cord trauma. , 574-580.
CrossRef21
Joshua Broder. 2011. Imaging the Cervical, Thoracic, and Lumbar Spine. , 73-157.
CrossRef22
Joshua Broder. 2011. Emergency Department Applications of Musculoskeletal Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Evidence-Based Assessment. , e1-e33.
CrossRef23
Catherine M. Clement, Ian G. Stiell, Barbara Davies, Annette O’Connor, Jamie C. Brehaut, Pamela Sheehan, Tami Clavet, Christine Leclair, Taryn MacKenzie, Christine Beland. (2011) Perceived facilitators and barriers to clinical clearance of the cervical spine by emergency department nurses: A major step towards changing practice in the emergency department. International Emergency Nursing 19:1, 44-52
CrossRef24
Hilla Sarig Bahat, Patrice L. Weiss, Yocheved Laufer. (2010) The Effect of Neck Pain on Cervical Kinematics, as Assessed in a Virtual Environment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 91:12, 1884-1890
CrossRef25
Laura Pimentel, Laura Diegelmann. (2010) Evaluation and Management of Acute Cervical Spine Trauma. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 28:4, 719-738
CrossRef26
Yoshihiro Aoi, Gaku Inagawa, Kyota Nakamura, Hitoshi Sato, Takayuki Kariya, Takahisa Goto. (2010) Airway Scope Versus Macintosh Laryngoscope in Patients With Simulated Limitation of Neck Movements. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 69:4, 838-842
CrossRef27
Casey H. Halpern, Andrew H. Milby, Wensheng Guo, James M. Schuster, Vicente H. Gracias, Sherman C. Stein. (2010) Clearance of the Cervical Spine in Clinically Unevaluable Trauma Patients. Spine 35:18, 1721-1728
CrossRef28
Emmanuel Yung, Skulpan Asavasopon, Joseph J. Godges. (2010) Screening for Head, Neck, and Shoulder Pathology in Patients with Upper Extremity Signs and Symptoms. Journal of Hand Therapy 23:2, 173-186
CrossRef29
P. M. Parizel, T. Zijden, S. Gaudino, M. Spaepen, M. H. J. Voormolen, C. Venstermans, F. Belder, L. den Hauwe, J. Goethem. (2010) Trauma of the spine and spinal cord: imaging strategies. European Spine Journal 19:S1, 8-17
CrossRef30
Robert C. Mackersie. (2010) Pitfalls in the Evaluation and Resuscitation of the Trauma Patient. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 28:1, 1-27
CrossRef31
Andrew P. Winterstein, Brian J. Vesci. (2010) Current Evidence Guiding Clinical Practice in Athletic Training. Athletic Training & Sports Health Care 2:2, 57-60
CrossRef32
Paul A Anderson, Ryan D Muchow, Alejandro Munoz, William L Tontz, Daniel K Resnick. (2010) Clearance of the Asymptomatic Cervical Spine: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 24:2, 100-106
CrossRef33
Chad S. Kessler, Evie G. Marcolini, Gillian Schmitz, Charles J. Gerardo, Glenn Burns, Brian DelliGatti, Catherine A. Marco, David E. Manthey, Deborah Gutman, Kathleen Jobe, Bradley N. Younggren, Ted Stettner, Peter E. Sokolove. (2009) Off-service Resident Education in the Emergency Department: Outline of a National Standardized Curriculum. Academic Emergency Medicine 16:12, 1325-1330
CrossRef34
Lauren Nentwich, Andrew S. Ulrich. (2009) High-Risk Chief Complaints II: Disorders of the Head and Neck. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 27:4, 713-746
CrossRef35
John J. Como, Jose J. Diaz, C Michael Dunham, William C. Chiu, Therese M. Duane, Jeannette M. Capella, Michele R. Holevar, Kosar A. Khwaja, Julie A. Mayglothling, Michael B. Shapiro, Eleanor S. Winston. (2009) Practice Management Guidelines for Identification of Cervical Spine Injuries Following Trauma: Update From the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Practice Management Guidelines Committee. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 67:3, 651-659
CrossRef36
T.P. Saltzherr, P.H.P. Fung Kon Jin, L.F.M. Beenen, W.P. Vandertop, J.C. Goslings. (2009) Diagnostic imaging of cervical spine injuries following blunt trauma: A review of the literature and practical guideline. Injury 40:8, 795-800
CrossRef37
Susan Black. (2009) Anesthesia for Spine Surgery. ASA Refresher Courses in Anesthesiology 37:1, 13-23
CrossRef38
M. Körner, M. Reiser, U. Linsenmaier. (2009) Multidetektor-CT zur Diagnostik traumatologischer Notfälle. Der Radiologe 49:6, 510-515
CrossRef39
Aldo Gonzalez-Beicos, Diego B. Nunez. (2009) Role of Multidetector Computed Tomography in the Assessment of Cervical Spine Trauma. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT, and MRI 30:3, 159-167
CrossRef40
Peter F. Ehrlich, Christopher Wee, Robert Drongowski, Ankur R. Rana. (2009) Canadian C-spine Rule and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Low-Risk Criteria for C-spine radiography in young trauma patients. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 44:5, 987-991
CrossRef41
Alexia M. Egloff, Nadja Kadom, Gilbert Vezina, Dorothy Bulas. (2009) Pediatric cervical spine trauma imaging: a practical approach. Pediatric Radiology 39:5, 447-456
CrossRef42
Enda O'Connor, James Walsham. (2009) Review article: Indications for thoracolumbar imaging in blunt trauma patients: A review of current literature. Emergency Medicine Australasia 21:2, 94-101
CrossRef43
Basem T. Jamal, Robert Diecidue, Akram Qutub, Murray Cohen. (2009) The Pattern of Combined Maxillofacial and Cervical Spine Fractures. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 67:3, 559-562
CrossRef44
Joshua N. Goldstein, David M. Greer. (2009) Rapid Focused Neurological Assessment in the Emergency Department and ICU. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 27:1, 1-16
CrossRef45
Adam Brooks, Peter Mahoney, Timothy Hodgetts, Frédéric Lapostolle, Jean Catineau. 2009. Organes. , 61-191.
CrossRef46
Debra Eagles, Ian G. Stiell, Catherine M. Clement, Jamie Brehaut, Monica Taljaard, Anne-Maree Kelly, Suzanne Mason, Arthur Kellermann, Jeffrey J Perry. (2008) International Survey of Emergency Physicians’ Awareness and Use of the Canadian Cervical-Spine Rule and the Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule. Academic Emergency Medicine 15:12, 1256-1261
CrossRef47
Jacques S. Lee, Graeme Schwindt, Mara Langevin, Rola Moghabghab, Shabbir M. H. Alibhai, Alex Kiss, Gary Naglie. (2008) Validation of the Triage Risk Stratification Tool to Identify Older Persons at Risk for Hospital Admission and Returning to the Emergency Department. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 56:11, 2112-2117
CrossRef48
Andrew H. Milby, Casey H. Halpern, Wensheng Guo, Sherman C. Stein. (2008) Prevalence of cervical spinal injury in trauma. Neurosurgical FOCUS 25:5, E10
CrossRef49
Björn Rydevik, Marek Szpalski, Max Aebi, Robert Gunzburg. (2008) Whiplash injuries and associated disorders: new insights into an old problem. European Spine Journal 17:S3, 359-416
CrossRef50
John C France. (2008) Update on the appropriate radiographic studies for cervical spine: evaluation and clearance in the polytraumatized patient. Current Orthopaedic Practice 19:4, 411-415
CrossRef51
P. Schleicher, M. Scholz, K. Schnake, F. Kandziora. (2008) Standarddiagnostik und Management von subaxialen HWS-Verletzungen. Trauma und Berufskrankheit 10:S2, 175-181
CrossRef52
David J. Mathison, Nadja Kadom, Steven E. Krug. (2008) Spinal Cord Injury in the Pediatric Patient. Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine 9:2, 106-123
CrossRef53
Margareta Nordin, Eugene J. Carragee, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Shira Schecter Weiner, Eric L. Hurwitz, Paul M. Peloso, Jaime Guzman, Gabrielle Velde, Linda J. Carroll, Lena W. Holm, Pierre Côté, J. David Cassidy, Scott Haldeman. (2008) Assessment of Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. European Spine Journal 17:S1, 101-122
CrossRef54
M. Perry, C. Morris. (2008) Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) and facial trauma: can one size fit all?. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 37:4, 309-320
CrossRef55
Hugh J.L. Garton, Matthew R. Hammer. (2008) DETECTION OF PEDIATRIC CERVICAL SPINE INJURY. Neurosurgery 62:3, 700-708
CrossRef56
Debra Eagles, Ian G Stiell, Catherine M Clement, Jamie Brehaut, Anne-Maree Kelly, Suzanne Mason, Arthur Kellermann, Jeffrey J Perry. (2008) International Survey of Emergency Physicians’ Priorities for Clinical Decision Rules. Academic Emergency Medicine 15:2, 177-182
CrossRef57
Jenny Pliefke, Dirk Stengel, Grit Rademacher, Sven Mutze, Axel Ekkernkamp, Andreas Eisenschenk. (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of plain radiographs and cineradiography in diagnosing traumatic scapholunate dissociation. Skeletal Radiology 37:2, 139-145
CrossRef58
Margareta Nordin, Eugene J. Carragee, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Shira Schecter Weiner, Eric L. Hurwitz, Paul M. Peloso, Jaime Guzman, Gabrielle van der Velde, Linda J. Carroll, Lena W. Holm, Pierre Côté, J David Cassidy, Scott Haldeman. (2008) Assessment of Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 33:Neck Pain Suppl, S101-S122
CrossRef59
Ryan D. Muchow, Daniel K. Resnick, Matthew P. Abdel, Alejandro Munoz, Paul A. Anderson. (2008) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the Clearance of the Cervical Spine in Blunt Trauma: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 64:1, 179-189
CrossRef60
E. Gercek, B. M. Wahlen, P. M. Rommens. (2008) In vivo ultrasound real-time motion of the cervical spine during intubation under manual in-line stabilization: a comparison of intubation methods. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 25:01,
CrossRef61
Robert C. Mackersie, Rochelle A. Dicker. (2007) Pitfalls in the Evaluation and Management of the Trauma Patient. Current Problems in Surgery 44:12, 778-833
CrossRef62
Marcel F. Dvorak, Charles G. Fisher, Bizhan Aarabi, Mitchel B. Harris, R John Hurbert, Y Raja Rampersaud, Alex Vaccaro, James S. Harrop, Russ P. Nockels, Ignacio N. Madrazo, David Schwartz, Brian K. Kwon, Yinshan Zhao, Michael G. Fehlings. (2007) Clinical Outcomes of 90 Isolated Unilateral Facet Fractures, Subluxations, and Dislocations Treated Surgically and Nonoperatively. Spine 32:26, 3007-3013
CrossRef63
Ian G. Stiell, Carol Bennett. (2007) Implementation of Clinical Decision Rules in the Emergency Department. Academic Emergency Medicine 14:11, 955-959
CrossRef64
Richard H. Daffner, David B. Hackney. (2007) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® on Suspected Spine Trauma. Journal of the American College of Radiology 4:11, 762-775
CrossRef65
E. Coudeyre, S. Demaille-Wlodyka, S. Poizat, K. Burton, M.A. Hamonet, M. Revel, S. Poiraudeau. (2007) Could a simple educational intervention modify beliefs about whiplash? A preliminary study among professionals working in a rehabilitation ward. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique 50:7, 552-557
CrossRef66
E. Coudeyre, S. Demaille-Wlodyka, S. Poizat, K. Burton, M.A. Hamonet, M. Revel, S. Poiraudeau. (2007) Une simple démarche d'information peut-elle modifier les croyances concernant le traumatisme en coup de fouet cervical? Étude préliminaire menée en établissement de santé. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique 50:7, 545-551
CrossRef67
John D. Hinds, Gareth Allen, Craig G. Morris. (2007) Trauma and motorcyclists; born to be wild, bound to be injured?. Injury 38:10, 1131-1138
CrossRef68
Robert Meek, Dan McGannon, Liza Edwards. (2007) The safety of nurse clearance of the cervical spine using the National Emergency X-radiography Utilization Study low-risk criteria. Emergency Medicine Australasia 19:4, 372-376
CrossRef69
Amy Kaji, Robert Hockberger. (2007) Imaging of Spinal Cord Injuries. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 25:3, 735-750
CrossRef70
Bernhard Tins, Victor Cassar-Pullicino. (2007) Controversies in “Clearing” Trauma to the Cervical Spine. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT, and MRI 28:2, 94-100
CrossRef71
Phillip S. Sizer, Jean-Michel Brismée, Chad Cook. (2007) Medical Screening for Red Flags in the Diagnosis and Management of Musculoskeletal Spine Pain. Pain Practice 7:1, 53-71
CrossRef72
Jeffrey J. Perry, Ian G. Stiell. (2006) Impact of clinical decision rules on clinical care of traumatic injuries to the foot and ankle, knee, cervical spine, and head. Injury 37:12, 1157-1165
CrossRef73
Joshua Broder, David M. Warshauer. (2006) Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000–2005. Emergency Radiology 13:1, 25-30
CrossRef74
Edward T. Crosby. (2006) Airway Management in Adults after Cervical Spine Trauma. Anesthesiology 104:6, 1293-1318
CrossRef75
Jamie C. Brehaut, Ian D. Graham, Laura Visentin, Ian G. Stiell. (2006) Print format and sender recognition were related to survey completion rate. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59:6, 635-641
CrossRef76
Charles G. Fisher, Vanessa K. Noonan, Marcel F. Dvorak. (2006) Changing Face of Spine Trauma Care in North America. Spine 31:Supplement, S2-S8
CrossRef77
Jamie C. Brehaut, Ian G. Stiell, Ian D. Graham. (2006) Will a New Clinical Decision Rule Be Widely Used? the Case of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Academic Emergency Medicine 13:4, 413-420
CrossRef78
Christine Dearden, Declan Hughes. (2005) Does the National Emergency X-ray Utilization Study make a difference?. European Journal of Emergency Medicine 12:6, 278-281
CrossRef79
B. A. Leidel, K.-G. Kanz, W. Mutschler. (2005) Evidenzbasiertes diagnostisches Vorgehen bei Verdacht auf stumpfes HWS-Trauma. Der Unfallchirurg 108:11, 905-919
CrossRef80
Jamie C. Brehaut, Ian G. Stiell, Laura Visentin, Ian D. Graham. (2005) Clinical Decision Rules "in the Real World": How a Widely Disseminated Rule Is Used in Everyday Practice. Academic Emergency Medicine 12:10, 948-956
CrossRef81
Robert J. Brison, Lisa Hartling, Suzanne Dostaler, Andy Leger, Brian H. Rowe, Ian Stiell, William Pickett. (2005) A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Educational Intervention to Prevent the Chronic Pain of Whiplash Associated Disorders Following Rear-End Motor Vehicle Collisions. Spine 30:16, 1799-1807
CrossRef82
Johan W. M. Goethem, Menno Maes,
zkan
CrossRef83
John Vinen. (2005) Guidelines: The solution to the problem? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Emergency Medicine Australasia 17:1, 89-92
CrossRef84
Dilip K Sengupta. (2005) Neglected Spinal Injuries. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research &NA;:431, 93-103
CrossRef85
B TINS, V CASSARPULLICINO. (2004) Imaging of acute cervical spine injuries: review and outlook. Clinical Radiology 59:10, 865-880
CrossRef86
(2004) The Canadian C-Spine Rule. New England Journal of Medicine 350:14, 1467-1469
Full Text87
Yealy, Donald M., Auble, Thomas E., . (2003) Choosing between Clinical Prediction Rules. New England Journal of Medicine 349:26, 2553-2555
Full Text
- Letters
