Abstract:Paediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare but can have severe consequences. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been developed to guide clinical decision‐making, minimise unnecessary tests and associated risks, whilst detecting all significant CSIs. Several validated CDRs are used to guide imaging decision‐making in adults following blunt trauma and clinical criteria have been proposed as possible paediatric‐specific CDRs. Little information is known about their accuracy. To assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of CDRs or sets of clinical criteria, alone or in comparison with each other, for the evaluation of CSI following blunt trauma in children. For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases from 1 January 2015 to 13 December 2022. As we expanded the index test eligibility for this review update, we searched the excluded studies from the previous version of the review for eligibility. We contacted field experts to identify ongoing studies and studies potentially missed by the search. There were no language restrictions. We included cross‐sectional or cohort designs (retrospective and prospective) and randomised controlled trials that compared the diagnostic accuracy of any CDR or clinical criteria compared with a reference standard for the evaluation of paediatric CSI following blunt trauma. We included studies evaluating one CDR or comparing two or more CDRs (directly and indirectly). We considered X‐ray, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and clinical clearance/follow‐up as adequate reference standards. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, and carried out eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment. A third review author arbitrated. We extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, index test, target condition, reference standard and data (diagnostic two‐by‐two tables) and calculated and plotted sensitivity and specificity on forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We assessed methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Version 2 tool. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included five studies with 21,379 enrolled participants, published between 2001 and 2021. Prevalence of CSI ranged from 0.5% to 1.85%. Seven CDRs were evaluated. Three studies reported on direct comparisons of CDRs. One study (973 participants) directly compared the accuracy of three index tests with the sensitivities of NEXUS, Canadian C‐Spine Rule and the PECARN retrospective criteria being 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00), respectively. The specificities were 0.56 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.59), 0.52 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.55) and 0.32 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.35), respectively (moderate‐certainty evidence). One study (4091 participants) compared the accuracy of the PECARN retrospective criteria with the Leonard de novo model; the sensitivities were 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97), respectively. The specificities were 0.46 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.47) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.52) (moderate‐ and low‐certainty evidence, respectively). One study (270 participants) compared the accuracy of two NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) head injury guidelines; the sensitivity of the CG56 guideline was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) compared to 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) with the CG176 guideline. The specificities were 0.46 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.52) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), respectively (very low‐certainty evidence). Two additional studies were indirect comparison studies. One study (3065 participants) tested the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria; the sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21) (low‐certainty evidence). One retrospective study (12,537 participants) evaluated the PEDSPINE criteria and found a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.99) and specificity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.72) (very low‐certainty evidence). We did not pool data within the broader CDR categories or investigate heterogeneity due to the small quantity of data and the clinical heterogeneity of studies. Two studies were at high risk of bias. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification pending further information and two ongoing studies. There is insufficient evidence to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of CDRs to detect CSIs in children following blunt trauma, particularly for children under eight years of age. Although most studies had a high sensitivity, this was often achieved at the expense of low specificity and should be interpreted with caution due to a small number of CSIs and wide CIs. Well‐designed, large studies are required to evaluate the ac -Abstract Truncated-

Comparing the denver criteria sets for blunt trauma: a retrospective study of cases in Edmonton, Alberta

Missed blunt cerebrovascular injuries using current screening criteria - The time for liberalized screening is now

Criteria for Performing Cranial Computed Tomography for Chinese Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule or New Orleans Criteria?

Comparing Blood Biomarkers to Clinical Decision Rules to Select Patients Suspected of Traumatic Brain Injury for Head Computed Tomography.

Blunt cerebrovascular injuries: does treatment always matter?

Association between Blood and Computed Tomographic Imaging Biomarkers in a Cohort of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients

Trauma CT evaluation prior to selective angiography in patients with traumatic injuries: negative predictive power and factors affecting its utility

Cervical spinal clearance: A prospective Western Trauma Association Multi-institutional Trial

Utilizing Un-enhanced Chest Computed Tomography Screening for Blunt Trauma Surgery Decisions

Evaluating the Utility of Repeat CT Scans in Patients with Isolated Mild Traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

A comparison of computed tomography angiography and digital subtraction angiography for the diagnosis of penetrating cerebrovascular injury: a prospective multicenter study

Creating and validating a neurosurgical intervention rule-out tool for patients with mild traumatic brain injury and isolated subdural hematoma: a 5-year, six-center retrospective cohort study

The Role of Number of Affected Vessels on Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Blunt Cerebrovascular Injury

Use of the Canadian CT head rule for patients on anticoagulant/anti-platelet therapy presenting with mild traumatic brain injury: prospective observational study

Abstract TP160: Minimum Intracerebral Hemorrhage Volume to Maximize Diagnostic Accuracy of Simplified Edinburgh Criteria

Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in paediatric trauma patients

Shifts in Diagnostic Testing for Headache in the Emergency Department, 2015 to 2021

Computed Tomography Perfusion Deficits During the Baseline Period in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Are Predictive of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia

434 Concurrent Vascular and Traumatic Brain Injury: Effect on Patient Outcomes

Clinical outcomes among patients with concurrent blunt cerebrovascular injury and traumatic intracranial hemorrhage

Risk Factors in Pediatric Blunt Cervical Vascular Injury and Significance of Seatbelt Sign