A prospective observational study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for children presenting to emergency departments after head injuries (protocol): the Australasian Paediatric Head Injury Rules Study (APHIRST)

Abstract

BackgroundHead injuries in children are responsible for a large number of emergency department visits. Failure to identify a clinically significant intracranial injury in a timely fashion may result in long term neurodisability and death. Whilst cranial computed tomography (CT) provides rapid and definitive identification of intracranial injuries, it is resource intensive and associated with radiation induced cancer. Evidence based head injury clinical decision rules have been derived to aid physicians in identifying patients at risk of having a clinically significant intracranial injury. Three rules have been identified as being of high quality and accuracy: the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH) from Canada, the Children’s Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE) from the UK, and the prediction rule for the identification of children at very low risk of clinically important traumatic brain injury developed by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) from the USA. This study aims to prospectively validate and compare the performance accuracy of these three clinical decision rules when applied outside the derivation setting.Methods/designThis study is a prospective observational study of children aged 0 to less than 18 years presenting to 10 emergency departments within the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) research network in Australia and New Zealand after head injuries of any severity. Predictor variables identified in CATCH, CHALICE and PECARN clinical decision rules will be collected. Patients will be managed as per the treating clinicians at the participating hospitals. All patients not undergoing cranial CT will receive a follow up call 14 to 90 days after the injury. Outcome data collected will include results of cranial CTs (if performed) and details of admission, intubation, neurosurgery and death. The performance accuracy of each of the rules will be assessed using rule specific outcomes and inclusion and exclusion criteria.DiscussionThis study will allow the simultaneous comparative application and validation of three major paediatric head injury clinical decision rules outside their derivation setting.Trial registrationThe study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)- ACTRN12614000463673 (registered 2 May 2014).

Trends in CT Utilization for Pediatric Fall Patients in US Emergency Departments

“…A number of studies have examined the role of decision tools in an attempt to curb imaging utilization among pediatric trauma patients. Recently, randomized control trials by Hess et al and Babl et al have been initiated to study the effectiveness of decision aids and rules to assist in deciding whether a CT on a child is necessary (28,29).…”

Accuracy of NEXUS II head injury decision rule in children: a prospective PREDICT cohort study

“…The trial protocol was published in detail elsewhere 12. The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000463673 and followed the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies guidelines 13…”

Accuracy of SOFA score in prediction of 30-day outcome of critically ill patients

“…Emergency physicians constantly have to choose the most accurate therapeutic plan for the patients based on the severity and prognosis of the disease and deal with the worries of the patients' relatives 2 . Therefore, having a correct criteria for prioritizing patients is of great importance for providing special care for critically ill patients and help reducing health and financial burdens of diseases 3, 4. Since years ago, researchers have attempted to design various scoring systems to determine the severity of the disease and predict the outcome of patients 5, 6, 7.…”