Comparison of quantitative EEG to current clinical decision rules for head CT use in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the ED
Abstract Study objective We compared the performance of a handheld quantitative electroencephalogram (QEEG) acquisition device to New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) Rule in predicting intracranial lesions on...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of emergency medicine 2015-04, Vol.33 (4), p.493-496 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 496 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 493 |
container_title | The American journal of emergency medicine |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | Ayaz, Syed Imran, MBBS Thomas, Craig, MS Kulek, Andrew, BS Tolomello, Rosa, BS Mika, Valerie, MS Robinson, Duane, BA Medado, Patrick, BS Pearson, Claire, MD, MPH Prichep, Leslie S., PhD O’Neil, Brian J., MD |
description | Abstract Study objective We compared the performance of a handheld quantitative electroencephalogram (QEEG) acquisition device to New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) Rule in predicting intracranial lesions on head computed tomography (CT) in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED). Methods Patients between 18 and 80 years of age who presented to the ED with acute blunt head trauma were enrolled in this prospective observational study at 2 urban academic EDs in Detroit, MI. Data were collected for 10 minutes from frontal leads to determine a QEEG discriminant score that could maximally classify intracranial lesions on head CT. Results One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled from July 2012 to February 2013. A total 17.1% had acute traumatic intracranial lesions on head CT. Quantitative electroencephalogram discriminant score of greater than or equal to 31 was found to be a good cutoff (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93) to classify patients with positive head CT. The sensitivity of QEEG discriminant score was 92.3 (95% CI, 73.4-98.6), whereas the specificity was 57.1 (95% CI, 48.0-65.8). The sensitivity and specificity of the decision rules were as follows: NOC 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 15.8 (95% CI, 10.1-23.6); CCHR 46.1 (95% CI, 27.1-66.2) and 86.5 (95% CI, 78.9-91.7); NEXUS II 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 31.7 (95% CI, 23.9-40.7). Conclusion At a sensitivity of greater than 90%, QEEG discriminant score had better specificity than NOC and NEXUS II. Only CCHR had better specificity than QEEG discriminant score but at the cost of low (< 50%) sensitivity. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.11.015 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1675871683</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0735675714008298</els_id><sourcerecordid>3659525791</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-7c122be9ab593470fb3ff77323921f5cf8cb78288d5e9fe118d51a1b5a8b5313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kkuLFDEUhQtRnHb0D7iQgBs3VeYmlU4KRBjadhQGXNj7kErdYlLWoyePgd75003RMwqzcJVAvnOSnHOL4i3QCihsPw6VGXCqGIW6AqgoiGfFBgRnpQIJz4sNlVyUWynkRfEqhIFSgFrUL4sLJiSTsJWb4vdumY7Gu7DMZOnJXTJzdNFEd49kv78mcSE2eY9zJHZ0s7NmJB1aF1wW-DRiIP3iyS2ajuwOJAUkbibGpohkcmNHojdpyn6WtN7kIzcPyZ9WKN7mK768Ll70Zgz45mG9LA5f94fdt_Lmx_X33dVNaWvexFJaYKzFxrSi4bWkfcv7XkrOeMOgF7ZXtpWKKdUJbHoEyBsw0AqjWsGBXxYfzrZHv9wlDFFPLlgcRzPjkoLOYQiVI1E8o--foMOS_Jwft1I140w1NFPsTFm_hOCx10fvJuNPGqhe69GDXuvRaz0aQOd6sujdg3VqJ-z-Sh77yMCnM4A5inuHXgfrcLbYOY826m5x__f__ET-WNovPGH49w8dmKb65zog63xATalijeJ_ALN-tVk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1674232890</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of quantitative EEG to current clinical decision rules for head CT use in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the ED</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Ayaz, Syed Imran, MBBS ; Thomas, Craig, MS ; Kulek, Andrew, BS ; Tolomello, Rosa, BS ; Mika, Valerie, MS ; Robinson, Duane, BA ; Medado, Patrick, BS ; Pearson, Claire, MD, MPH ; Prichep, Leslie S., PhD ; O’Neil, Brian J., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Ayaz, Syed Imran, MBBS ; Thomas, Craig, MS ; Kulek, Andrew, BS ; Tolomello, Rosa, BS ; Mika, Valerie, MS ; Robinson, Duane, BA ; Medado, Patrick, BS ; Pearson, Claire, MD, MPH ; Prichep, Leslie S., PhD ; O’Neil, Brian J., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Study objective We compared the performance of a handheld quantitative electroencephalogram (QEEG) acquisition device to New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) Rule in predicting intracranial lesions on head computed tomography (CT) in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED). Methods Patients between 18 and 80 years of age who presented to the ED with acute blunt head trauma were enrolled in this prospective observational study at 2 urban academic EDs in Detroit, MI. Data were collected for 10 minutes from frontal leads to determine a QEEG discriminant score that could maximally classify intracranial lesions on head CT. Results One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled from July 2012 to February 2013. A total 17.1% had acute traumatic intracranial lesions on head CT. Quantitative electroencephalogram discriminant score of greater than or equal to 31 was found to be a good cutoff (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93) to classify patients with positive head CT. The sensitivity of QEEG discriminant score was 92.3 (95% CI, 73.4-98.6), whereas the specificity was 57.1 (95% CI, 48.0-65.8). The sensitivity and specificity of the decision rules were as follows: NOC 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 15.8 (95% CI, 10.1-23.6); CCHR 46.1 (95% CI, 27.1-66.2) and 86.5 (95% CI, 78.9-91.7); NEXUS II 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 31.7 (95% CI, 23.9-40.7). Conclusion At a sensitivity of greater than 90%, QEEG discriminant score had better specificity than NOC and NEXUS II. Only CCHR had better specificity than QEEG discriminant score but at the cost of low (< 50%) sensitivity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0735-6757</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8171</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.11.015</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25727167</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Brain Injuries - diagnostic imaging ; Brain research ; Computed tomography ; Consciousness ; Decision making ; Decision Support Techniques ; Electrodes ; Electroencephalography ; Emergency ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency medical services ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; Female ; Fractures ; Head injuries ; Humans ; Lesions ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Observational studies ; Prospective Studies ; Radiography ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization ; Trauma ; Trauma centers ; Traumatic brain injury ; Vomiting</subject><ispartof>The American journal of emergency medicine, 2015-04, Vol.33 (4), p.493-496</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-7c122be9ab593470fb3ff77323921f5cf8cb78288d5e9fe118d51a1b5a8b5313</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-7c122be9ab593470fb3ff77323921f5cf8cb78288d5e9fe118d51a1b5a8b5313</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6379-3659</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1674232890?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25727167$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ayaz, Syed Imran, MBBS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Craig, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kulek, Andrew, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tolomello, Rosa, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mika, Valerie, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Duane, BA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Medado, Patrick, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pearson, Claire, MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prichep, Leslie S., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Neil, Brian J., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of quantitative EEG to current clinical decision rules for head CT use in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the ED</title><title>The American journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><description>Abstract Study objective We compared the performance of a handheld quantitative electroencephalogram (QEEG) acquisition device to New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) Rule in predicting intracranial lesions on head computed tomography (CT) in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED). Methods Patients between 18 and 80 years of age who presented to the ED with acute blunt head trauma were enrolled in this prospective observational study at 2 urban academic EDs in Detroit, MI. Data were collected for 10 minutes from frontal leads to determine a QEEG discriminant score that could maximally classify intracranial lesions on head CT. Results One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled from July 2012 to February 2013. A total 17.1% had acute traumatic intracranial lesions on head CT. Quantitative electroencephalogram discriminant score of greater than or equal to 31 was found to be a good cutoff (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93) to classify patients with positive head CT. The sensitivity of QEEG discriminant score was 92.3 (95% CI, 73.4-98.6), whereas the specificity was 57.1 (95% CI, 48.0-65.8). The sensitivity and specificity of the decision rules were as follows: NOC 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 15.8 (95% CI, 10.1-23.6); CCHR 46.1 (95% CI, 27.1-66.2) and 86.5 (95% CI, 78.9-91.7); NEXUS II 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 31.7 (95% CI, 23.9-40.7). Conclusion At a sensitivity of greater than 90%, QEEG discriminant score had better specificity than NOC and NEXUS II. Only CCHR had better specificity than QEEG discriminant score but at the cost of low (< 50%) sensitivity.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Brain Injuries - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Brain research</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Consciousness</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision Support Techniques</subject><subject>Electrodes</subject><subject>Electroencephalography</subject><subject>Emergency</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Emergency Service, Hospital</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Head injuries</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Trauma centers</subject><subject>Traumatic brain injury</subject><subject>Vomiting</subject><issn>0735-6757</issn><issn>1532-8171</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kkuLFDEUhQtRnHb0D7iQgBs3VeYmlU4KRBjadhQGXNj7kErdYlLWoyePgd75003RMwqzcJVAvnOSnHOL4i3QCihsPw6VGXCqGIW6AqgoiGfFBgRnpQIJz4sNlVyUWynkRfEqhIFSgFrUL4sLJiSTsJWb4vdumY7Gu7DMZOnJXTJzdNFEd49kv78mcSE2eY9zJHZ0s7NmJB1aF1wW-DRiIP3iyS2ajuwOJAUkbibGpohkcmNHojdpyn6WtN7kIzcPyZ9WKN7mK768Ll70Zgz45mG9LA5f94fdt_Lmx_X33dVNaWvexFJaYKzFxrSi4bWkfcv7XkrOeMOgF7ZXtpWKKdUJbHoEyBsw0AqjWsGBXxYfzrZHv9wlDFFPLlgcRzPjkoLOYQiVI1E8o--foMOS_Jwft1I140w1NFPsTFm_hOCx10fvJuNPGqhe69GDXuvRaz0aQOd6sujdg3VqJ-z-Sh77yMCnM4A5inuHXgfrcLbYOY826m5x__f__ET-WNovPGH49w8dmKb65zog63xATalijeJ_ALN-tVk</recordid><startdate>20150401</startdate><enddate>20150401</enddate><creator>Ayaz, Syed Imran, MBBS</creator><creator>Thomas, Craig, MS</creator><creator>Kulek, Andrew, BS</creator><creator>Tolomello, Rosa, BS</creator><creator>Mika, Valerie, MS</creator><creator>Robinson, Duane, BA</creator><creator>Medado, Patrick, BS</creator><creator>Pearson, Claire, MD, MPH</creator><creator>Prichep, Leslie S., PhD</creator><creator>O’Neil, Brian J., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6379-3659</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20150401</creationdate><title>Comparison of quantitative EEG to current clinical decision rules for head CT use in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the ED</title><author>Ayaz, Syed Imran, MBBS ; Thomas, Craig, MS ; Kulek, Andrew, BS ; Tolomello, Rosa, BS ; Mika, Valerie, MS ; Robinson, Duane, BA ; Medado, Patrick, BS ; Pearson, Claire, MD, MPH ; Prichep, Leslie S., PhD ; O’Neil, Brian J., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-7c122be9ab593470fb3ff77323921f5cf8cb78288d5e9fe118d51a1b5a8b5313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Brain Injuries - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Brain research</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Consciousness</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision Support Techniques</topic><topic>Electrodes</topic><topic>Electroencephalography</topic><topic>Emergency</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Emergency Service, Hospital</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Head injuries</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Trauma centers</topic><topic>Traumatic brain injury</topic><topic>Vomiting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ayaz, Syed Imran, MBBS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Craig, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kulek, Andrew, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tolomello, Rosa, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mika, Valerie, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Duane, BA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Medado, Patrick, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pearson, Claire, MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prichep, Leslie S., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Neil, Brian J., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ayaz, Syed Imran, MBBS</au><au>Thomas, Craig, MS</au><au>Kulek, Andrew, BS</au><au>Tolomello, Rosa, BS</au><au>Mika, Valerie, MS</au><au>Robinson, Duane, BA</au><au>Medado, Patrick, BS</au><au>Pearson, Claire, MD, MPH</au><au>Prichep, Leslie S., PhD</au><au>O’Neil, Brian J., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of quantitative EEG to current clinical decision rules for head CT use in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the ED</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><date>2015-04-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>493</spage><epage>496</epage><pages>493-496</pages><issn>0735-6757</issn><eissn>1532-8171</eissn><abstract>Abstract Study objective We compared the performance of a handheld quantitative electroencephalogram (QEEG) acquisition device to New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) Rule in predicting intracranial lesions on head computed tomography (CT) in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED). Methods Patients between 18 and 80 years of age who presented to the ED with acute blunt head trauma were enrolled in this prospective observational study at 2 urban academic EDs in Detroit, MI. Data were collected for 10 minutes from frontal leads to determine a QEEG discriminant score that could maximally classify intracranial lesions on head CT. Results One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled from July 2012 to February 2013. A total 17.1% had acute traumatic intracranial lesions on head CT. Quantitative electroencephalogram discriminant score of greater than or equal to 31 was found to be a good cutoff (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93) to classify patients with positive head CT. The sensitivity of QEEG discriminant score was 92.3 (95% CI, 73.4-98.6), whereas the specificity was 57.1 (95% CI, 48.0-65.8). The sensitivity and specificity of the decision rules were as follows: NOC 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 15.8 (95% CI, 10.1-23.6); CCHR 46.1 (95% CI, 27.1-66.2) and 86.5 (95% CI, 78.9-91.7); NEXUS II 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 31.7 (95% CI, 23.9-40.7). Conclusion At a sensitivity of greater than 90%, QEEG discriminant score had better specificity than NOC and NEXUS II. Only CCHR had better specificity than QEEG discriminant score but at the cost of low (< 50%) sensitivity.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25727167</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajem.2014.11.015</doi><tpages>4</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6379-3659</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0735-6757 |
ispartof | The American journal of emergency medicine, 2015-04, Vol.33 (4), p.493-496 |
issn | 0735-6757 1532-8171 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1675871683 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Age Aged Aged, 80 and over Brain Injuries - diagnostic imaging Brain research Computed tomography Consciousness Decision making Decision Support Techniques Electrodes Electroencephalography Emergency Emergency medical care Emergency medical services Emergency Service, Hospital Female Fractures Head injuries Humans Lesions Male Middle Aged Observational studies Prospective Studies Radiography Sensitivity and Specificity Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization Trauma Trauma centers Traumatic brain injury Vomiting |
title | Comparison of quantitative EEG to current clinical decision rules for head CT use in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the ED |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T18%3A32%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20quantitative%20EEG%20to%20current%20clinical%20decision%20rules%20for%20head%20CT%20use%20in%20acute%20mild%20traumatic%20brain%20injury%20in%20the%20ED&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Ayaz,%20Syed%20Imran,%20MBBS&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=493&rft.epage=496&rft.pages=493-496&rft.issn=0735-6757&rft.eissn=1532-8171&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajem.2014.11.015&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3659525791%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1674232890&rft_id=info:pmid/25727167&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0735675714008298&rfr_iscdi=true |