Review of the CATCH study: a clinical decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children with minor head injury

Gerdung, Christopher A.; Dowling, Shawn; Lang, Eddy

doi:10.2310/8000.2012.110387

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With the goal of reducing unnecessary NCCT in children, several clinical decision rules have been tested in an effort to identify pediatric patients who do not need NCCT, including the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury rule [128,129], the Children's Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events rule [130], and the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) rule [131]. A recent review of these and other rules applied in pediatric populations concluded that the PECARN rule appears to be the best validated rule for both children and infants.…”

Section: Which Pediatric Patients With Tbi Can Safely Avoidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging Evidence and Recommendations for Traumatic Brain Injury: Conventional Neuroimaging Techniques

Wintermark

Sanelli

Anzai

et al. 2015

Journal of the American College of Radiology

158

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Which Pediatric Patients With Tbi Can Safely Avoidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging Evidence and Recommendations for Traumatic Brain Injury: Conventional Neuroimaging Techniques

Wintermark

Sanelli

Anzai

et al. 2015

Journal of the American College of Radiology

158

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The CHALICE rule (Children’s Head injury ALgorithm for the prediction of Important Clinical Events) [43] was evaluated in 13 studies [24, 48, 58–62, 66, 69, 72, 77–80]. The CATCH rule (Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head injury) [51] was evaluated in 11 studies [48, 58–61, 63, 66, 72, 81–83]. The NEXUS II rule (National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study) [50, 54] was evaluated in four studies [48, 84–86].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CATCH rule was developed by Dr. Martin Osmond in the US in 2010 and was tested successfully for internal validity [51]. The rule was tested multiple times for external validity and proved externally valid in all the reported studies [48, 58–61, 63, 66, 72, 81]. The rule was not evaluated for usability, potential effect or post-implementation impact.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grading and assessment of clinical predictive tools for paediatric head injury: a new evidence-based approach

Khalifa

Gallego

2019

BMC Emerg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many clinical predictive tools have been developed to diagnose traumatic brain injury among children and guide the use of computed tomography in the emergency department. It is not always feasible to compare tools due to the diversity of their development methodologies, clinical variables, target populations, and predictive performances. The objectives of this study are to grade and assess paediatric head injury predictive tools, using a new evidence-based approach, and to provide emergency clinicians with standardised objective information on predictive tools to support their search for and selection of effective tools. Methods Paediatric head injury predictive tools were identified through a focused review of literature. Based on the critical appraisal of published evidence about predictive performance, usability, potential effect, and post-implementation impact, tools were evaluated using a new framework for grading and assessment of predictive tools (GRASP). A comprehensive analysis was conducted to explain why certain tools were more successful. Results Fourteen tools were identified and evaluated. The highest-grade tool is PECARN; the only tool evaluated in post-implementation impact studies. PECARN and CHALICE were evaluated for their potential effect on healthcare, while the remaining 12 tools were only evaluated for predictive performance. Three tools; CATCH, NEXUS II, and Palchak, were externally validated. Three tools; Haydel, Atabaki, and Buchanich, were only internally validated. The remaining six tools; Da Dalt, Greenes, Klemetti, Quayle, Dietrich, and Güzel did not show sufficient internal validity for use in clinical practice. Conclusions The GRASP framework provides clinicians with a high-level, evidence-based, comprehensive, yet simple and feasible approach to grade, compare, and select effective predictive tools. Comparing the three main tools which were assigned the highest grades; PECARN, CHALICE and CATCH, to the remaining 11, we find that the quality of tools’ development studies, the experience and credibility of their authors, and the support by well-funded research programs were correlated with the tools’ evidence-based assigned grades, and were more influential, than the sole high predictive performance, on the wide acceptance and successful implementation of the tools. Tools’ simplicity and feasibility, in terms of resources needed, technical requirements, and training, are also crucial factors for their success. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12873-019-0249-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…For patients following concussion, negative results on imaging studies in adults, including brain MRI, do not predict accurately which patients continue to suffer from postconcussive symptoms for weeks to months. [28][29][30][31] Although less well studied than in adults, several pediatric clinical decision rules have been tested in an effort to identify pediatric patients who can safely avoid NCCT, including the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH) rule, 32,33 the Children's Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHAL-ICE) rule, 21 and the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) rule. 34 A recent review of these and other pediatric population rules concluded that the PECARN rule appears to be the best validated rule for both children and infants as it is the largest study cohort, has the highest sensitivity, and acceptable specificity for clinically significant intracranial injuries.…”

Section: Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Computed Tomography in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: Who Needs It and How Is It Scored?

Eisenmenger

Anzai

2016

J Pediatr Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Head trauma is one of the most common reasons for children to visit the emergency room in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) utilization for pediatric head trauma continues to increase despite public concern regarding ionizing radiation exposure. More than 90% of the imaging studies in children with minor head trauma are negative for traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Judicious use of head CT is important to reduce unnecessary ionizing radiation in the vulnerable pediatric population. With the goal of reducing unnecessary CT for pediatric TBI patients, an important question is not ?who needs head CT? but ?who can safety avoid head CT.? When abnormal CT findings are present for moderate or severe TBI patients, accurate and reproducible scoring systems are also necessary to make CT reports actionable and meaningful for physicians in the trauma team. This article outlines the current evidence-based practices for pediatric head CT use, highlighting relevant clinical decision-making tools, as well as reviews the current CT-based trauma scoring systems.

show abstract

Review of the CATCH study: a clinical decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children with minor head injury

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Imaging Evidence and Recommendations for Traumatic Brain Injury: Conventional Neuroimaging Techniques

Imaging Evidence and Recommendations for Traumatic Brain Injury: Conventional Neuroimaging Techniques

Grading and assessment of clinical predictive tools for paediatric head injury: a new evidence-based approach

Computed Tomography in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: Who Needs It and How Is It Scored?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About