Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury in the emergency department
Clinical questionWhat is the diagnostic accuracy of the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury, and are the clinical decision rules valid when applied to a novel data set?Article chosenBabl FE, Borland ML, Phillips N, et al. Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALIC...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian journal of emergency medicine 2019-01, Vol.21 (1), p.120-124 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 124 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 120 |
| container_title | Canadian journal of emergency medicine |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | McGraw, Mark Way, Todd |
| description | Clinical questionWhat is the diagnostic accuracy of the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury, and are the clinical decision rules valid when applied to a novel data set?Article chosenBabl FE, Borland ML, Phillips N, et al. Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 2017;389(10087):2393-402. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy and provide external validation for the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules in a clinically homogeneous cohort of children. The secondary objective of this study was to perform a direct comparison of the three decision rules by assessing for the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on computed tomography (CT) or the requirement for neurointervention. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/cem.2018.444 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2115753147</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_cem_2018_444</cupid><sourcerecordid>2171582832</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-7fa4890c6f59206ffcfae90ae86377408a34e5412ba42cdb05d3a0a60919f5403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkUtLAzEURoMovneuJeDGRVvznGSWZagPKCqi6yHN3GjKPGoyI_TfG2lVEFf3Ls79vgsHoTNKJpRQdWWhmTBC9UQIsYMOqdB0rInguz87lwfoKMYlIZRJqvfRASdMKZqLQ_RRdM3KBB-7FncOP86K6dP9CBfT5-J2hE1b4eJ2Or8rZtjWvvXW1LgC66NPfBhqiNh1Aa-g8qYP3uI3MBX27XII6zRw_wYYGgiv0Np1ukxVfQNtf4L2nKkjnG7nMXq5nqXK8fzh5q6YzseW51k_Vs4InRObOZkzkjlnnYGcGNAZV0oQbbgAKShbGMFstSCy4oaYjOQ0d1IQfowuN7mr0L0PEPuy8dFCXZsWuiGWjFKpJKdCJfTiD7rshtCm7xKlqNRMc5ao0YayoYsxgCtXwTcmrEtKyi8fZfJRfvkok4-En29Dh0UD1Q_8LSABk22eaRbBV6_wW_tv4idbIJLW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2171582832</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury in the emergency department</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>McGraw, Mark ; Way, Todd</creator><creatorcontrib>McGraw, Mark ; Way, Todd</creatorcontrib><description>Clinical questionWhat is the diagnostic accuracy of the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury, and are the clinical decision rules valid when applied to a novel data set?Article chosenBabl FE, Borland ML, Phillips N, et al. Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 2017;389(10087):2393-402. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy and provide external validation for the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules in a clinically homogeneous cohort of children. The secondary objective of this study was to perform a direct comparison of the three decision rules by assessing for the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on computed tomography (CT) or the requirement for neurointervention.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1481-8035</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1481-8043</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/cem.2018.444</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30277194</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Age ; Brain cancer ; Commentary ; Confidence intervals ; Emergency medical care ; Head injuries ; Leukemia ; Medical imaging ; Neurosurgery ; Patients ; Pediatrics ; Trauma ; Traumatic brain injury ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2019-01, Vol.21 (1), p.120-124</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-7fa4890c6f59206ffcfae90ae86377408a34e5412ba42cdb05d3a0a60919f5403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-7fa4890c6f59206ffcfae90ae86377408a34e5412ba42cdb05d3a0a60919f5403</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30277194$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>McGraw, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Way, Todd</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury in the emergency department</title><title>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><description>Clinical questionWhat is the diagnostic accuracy of the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury, and are the clinical decision rules valid when applied to a novel data set?Article chosenBabl FE, Borland ML, Phillips N, et al. Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 2017;389(10087):2393-402. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy and provide external validation for the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules in a clinically homogeneous cohort of children. The secondary objective of this study was to perform a direct comparison of the three decision rules by assessing for the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on computed tomography (CT) or the requirement for neurointervention.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Brain cancer</subject><subject>Commentary</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Head injuries</subject><subject>Leukemia</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Traumatic brain injury</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>1481-8035</issn><issn>1481-8043</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptkUtLAzEURoMovneuJeDGRVvznGSWZagPKCqi6yHN3GjKPGoyI_TfG2lVEFf3Ls79vgsHoTNKJpRQdWWhmTBC9UQIsYMOqdB0rInguz87lwfoKMYlIZRJqvfRASdMKZqLQ_RRdM3KBB-7FncOP86K6dP9CBfT5-J2hE1b4eJ2Or8rZtjWvvXW1LgC66NPfBhqiNh1Aa-g8qYP3uI3MBX27XII6zRw_wYYGgiv0Np1ukxVfQNtf4L2nKkjnG7nMXq5nqXK8fzh5q6YzseW51k_Vs4InRObOZkzkjlnnYGcGNAZV0oQbbgAKShbGMFstSCy4oaYjOQ0d1IQfowuN7mr0L0PEPuy8dFCXZsWuiGWjFKpJKdCJfTiD7rshtCm7xKlqNRMc5ao0YayoYsxgCtXwTcmrEtKyi8fZfJRfvkok4-En29Dh0UD1Q_8LSABk22eaRbBV6_wW_tv4idbIJLW</recordid><startdate>201901</startdate><enddate>201901</enddate><creator>McGraw, Mark</creator><creator>Way, Todd</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</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>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201901</creationdate><title>Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury in the emergency department</title><author>McGraw, Mark ; Way, Todd</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-7fa4890c6f59206ffcfae90ae86377408a34e5412ba42cdb05d3a0a60919f5403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Brain cancer</topic><topic>Commentary</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Head injuries</topic><topic>Leukemia</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Traumatic brain injury</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McGraw, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Way, Todd</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</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>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>CBCA Reference & Current Events</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</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 China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McGraw, Mark</au><au>Way, Todd</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury in the emergency department</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><date>2019-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>120</spage><epage>124</epage><pages>120-124</pages><issn>1481-8035</issn><eissn>1481-8043</eissn><abstract>Clinical questionWhat is the diagnostic accuracy of the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury, and are the clinical decision rules valid when applied to a novel data set?Article chosenBabl FE, Borland ML, Phillips N, et al. Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 2017;389(10087):2393-402. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy and provide external validation for the PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules in a clinically homogeneous cohort of children. The secondary objective of this study was to perform a direct comparison of the three decision rules by assessing for the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on computed tomography (CT) or the requirement for neurointervention.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>30277194</pmid><doi>10.1017/cem.2018.444</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1481-8035 |
| ispartof | Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2019-01, Vol.21 (1), p.120-124 |
| issn | 1481-8035 1481-8043 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2115753147 |
| source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Accuracy Age Brain cancer Commentary Confidence intervals Emergency medical care Head injuries Leukemia Medical imaging Neurosurgery Patients Pediatrics Trauma Traumatic brain injury Tumors |
| title | Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE clinical decision rules for pediatric head injury in the emergency department |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T20%3A20%3A54IST&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%20PECARN,%20CATCH,%20and%20CHALICE%20clinical%20decision%20rules%20for%20pediatric%20head%20injury%20in%20the%20emergency%20department&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=McGraw,%20Mark&rft.date=2019-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=120&rft.epage=124&rft.pages=120-124&rft.issn=1481-8035&rft.eissn=1481-8043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/cem.2018.444&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2171582832%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=2171582832&rft_id=info:pmid/30277194&rft_cupid=10_1017_cem_2018_444&rfr_iscdi=true |