Canadian CT Head Rule
Determine which minor head injury patients need head CT imaging
The Canadian CT Head Rule was developed to identify patients at high risk of requiring neurosurgical intervention and clinically important brain injury. It has been validated in patients > 16 years of age, with blunt head trauma. Exclusions to the rule include neurological deficits, bleeding disorders or oral anticoagulants, pregnancy, obvious open skull fractures, seizures or unstable major trauma patients.
A comparison between the New Orleans Criteria and the Canadian CT Head Rule was performed in 2005. It showed both had 100% sensitivities, but the Canadian CT Head Rule was more specific (50.6% vs 12.7%) and thus could result in fewer CT Scans.
- [1]Stiell et al.: The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury.Lancet 2001 May 5, 357 (9266): 1391-6
- [2]Stiell et al.: Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in Patients With Minor Head Injury.JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2005 September 28, 294 (12): 1511-8
Results
Real-time automated computation
The Canadian CT Head Rule was developed to identify patients at high risk of requiring neurosurgical intervention and clinically important brain injury. It has been validated in patients > 16 years of age, with blunt head trauma. Exclusions to the rule include neurological deficits, bleeding disorders or oral anticoagulants, pregnancy, obvious open skull fractures, seizures or unstable major trauma patients.
A comparison between the New Orleans Criteria and the Canadian CT Head Rule was performed in 2005. It showed both had 100% sensitivities, but the Canadian CT Head Rule was more specific (50.6% vs 12.7%) and thus could result in fewer CT Scans.
- [1]Stiell et al.: The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury.Lancet 2001 May 5, 357 (9266): 1391-6
- [2]Stiell et al.: Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in Patients With Minor Head Injury.JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2005 September 28, 294 (12): 1511-8