2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.03.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implementation of a dual cervical spine and blunt cerebrovascular injury assessment pathway for pediatric trauma patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There were no missed CSIs or delays in their diagnosis in children younger than 8 years at our institution after the CSI screening guideline was implemented. This is consistent with the findings after similar pediatric CSI screening tools were implemented at other institutions 18–20 . The majority of these screening tools included CT from the occiput to T1 in their algorithm, although 1 study reported screening using CT from the occiput to C2 in conscious patients younger than 8 years 19 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There were no missed CSIs or delays in their diagnosis in children younger than 8 years at our institution after the CSI screening guideline was implemented. This is consistent with the findings after similar pediatric CSI screening tools were implemented at other institutions 18–20 . The majority of these screening tools included CT from the occiput to T1 in their algorithm, although 1 study reported screening using CT from the occiput to C2 in conscious patients younger than 8 years 19 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…the findings after similar pediatric CSI screening tools were implemented at other institutions. [18][19][20] The majority of these screening tools included CT from the occiput to T1 in their algorithm, although 1 study reported screening using CT from the occiput to C2 in conscious patients younger than 8 years. 19 We found a CSI rate of 1.5% which is consistent with most published literature.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%