JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic screening criteria for blunt cerebrovascular injuries.

BACKGROUND: Despite progress in diagnosing and managing blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI), controversy remains regarding the appropriate population to screen. A systematic review of published literature was conducted to summarize the overall incidence of BCVI and the various screening criteria used to detect BCVI. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate which screening criteria may be associated with BCVI. Goals were to confirm inclusion of certain criteria in current screening protocols and possibly eliminate criteria not associated with BCVI.

STUDY DESIGN: Studies published between January 1995 and April 2011 using digital subtraction angiography or CT angiography as a diagnostic modality and reporting overall BCVI incidence or prevalence of BCVI for specific screening criteria were examined. Screening criteria were analyzed using a random effects model to determine if an association with BCVI was present.

RESULTS: The incidence range of BCVI was between 0.18% and 2.70% among approximately 122,176 blunt trauma admissions. The meta-analysis encompassed 418 BCVI and 22,568 non-BCVI patients. Of the 9 screening criteria analyzed, cervical spine (odds ratio [OR] 5.45; 95% CI 2.24 to 13.27; p < 0.0001) and thoracic (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.35 to 2.92; p = 0.001) injuries demonstrated a significant association with BCVI.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cervical spine and thoracic injuries had significantly greater likelihoods of BCVI compared with patients without these injuries. All patients with either injury should be screened for BCVI. Multivariate logistic regression analysis is needed to elucidate the possible impact of the combined presence of screening criteria, but it was not possible in our study due to limitations in data presentation. Standardized reporting of BCVI data is not established and is recommended to permit future collaboration.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app