Welcome to NGC. Skip directly to: Search Box, Navigation, Content.


Brief Summary

GUIDELINE TITLE

Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

BRIEF SUMMARY CONTENT

 
RECOMMENDATIONS
 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY
 DISCLAIMER

 Go to the Complete Summary

RECOMMENDATIONS

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Definitions for the strength of evidence (Class I-III) and strength of recommendations (Level A-C) are repeated at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

  1. Which patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) should have a noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED)?

    Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. A noncontrast head CT is indicated in head trauma patients with loss of consciousness or posttraumatic amnesia only if one or more of the following is present: headache, vomiting, age greater than 60 years, drug or alcohol intoxication, deficits in short-term memory, physical evidence of trauma above the clavicle, posttraumatic seizure, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score less than 15, focal neurologic deficit, or coagulopathy.

    Level B recommendations. A noncontrast head CT should be considered in head trauma patients with no loss of consciousness or posttraumatic amnesia if there is a focal neurologic deficit, vomiting, severe headache, age 65 years or greater, physical signs of a basilar skull fracture, GCS score less than 15, coagulopathy, or a dangerous mechanism of injury.*

    *Dangerous mechanism of injury includes ejection from a motor vehicle, a pedestrian struck, and a fall from a height of more than 3 feet or 5 stairs.

    Level C recommendations. None specified.

  1. Is there a role for head magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over noncontrast CT in the ED evaluation of a patient with acute mild TBI?

    Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations. None specified.

  1. In patients with mild TBI, are brain-specific serum biomarkers predictive of an acute traumatic intracranial injury?

    Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations. In mild TBI patients without significant extracranial injuries and a serum S-100B level less than 0.1 micrograms/L measured within 4 hours of injury, consideration can be given to not performing a CT.*

    *This test has not yet received Food and Drug Administration approval for clinical use in the United States.

  1. Can a patient with an isolated mild TBI and a normal neurologic evaluation result be safely discharged from the ED if a noncontrast head CT scan shows no evidence of intracranial injury?

    Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. Patients with an isolated mild TBI who have a negative head CT scan result are at minimal risk for developing an intracranial lesion and therefore may be safely discharged from the ED.*

    *There are inadequate data to include patients with a bleeding disorder; who are receiving anticoagulation therapy or antiplatelet therapy; or who have had a previous neurosurgical procedure in this population.

    Level C recommendations. Mild TBI patients discharged from the ED should be informed about postconcussive symptoms.

Definitions:

Strength of Evidence

Literature Classification Schema^

Design/
Class
Therapy* Diagnosis** Prognosis***
1 Randomized, controlled trial or meta-analyses of randomized trials Prospective cohort using a criterion standard Population prospective cohort
2 Nonrandomized trial Retrospective observational Retrospective cohort
Case control
3 Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review)
Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review)
Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review)

^Some designs (e.g., surveys) will not fit this schema and should be assessed individually.

*Objective is to measure therapeutic efficacy comparing >2 interventions.

**Objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests.

***Objective is to predict outcome including mortality and morbidity.

Approach to Downgrading Strength of Evidence*

  Design/Class
Downgrading 1 2 3
None I II III
1 level II III X
2 levels III X X
Fatally flawed X X X

*See "Description of Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence" field for more information.

Strength of Recommendations

Level A recommendations. Generally accepted principles for patient management that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty (i.e., based on strength of evidence Class I or overwhelming evidence from strength of evidence Class II studies that directly address all of the issues).

Level B recommendations. Recommendations for patient management that may identify a particular strategy or range of management strategies that reflect moderate clinical certainty (i.e., based on strength of evidence Class II studies that directly address the issue, decision analysis that directly addresses the issue, or strong consensus of strength of evidence Class III studies).

Level C recommendations. Other strategies for patient management that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or, in the absence of any published literature, based on panel consensus.

There are certain circumstances in which the recommendations stemming from a body of evidence should not be rated as highly as the individual studies on which they are based. Factors such as heterogeneity of results, uncertainty about effect magnitude and consequences, strength of prior beliefs, and publication bias, among others, might lead to such a downgrading of recommendations.

CLINICAL ALGORITHM(S)

None provided

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see "Major Recommendations").

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

ADAPTATION

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

DATE RELEASED

2008 Nov 25

GUIDELINE DEVELOPER(S)

American College of Emergency Physicians - Medical Specialty Society

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING

This clinical policy was developed by a multidisciplinary panel and funded under contract 200-2007-21367, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Environmental Health and Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Injury Response.

GUIDELINE COMMITTEE

American College of Emergency Physicians(ACEP)/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Panel to Revise the 2002 Clinical Policy

COMPOSITION OF GROUP THAT AUTHORED THE GUIDELINE

Panel Members: Andy S. Jagoda, MD, Chair; Jeffrey J. Bazarian, MD, MPH; John J. Bruns, Jr, MD; Stephen V. Cantrill, MD; Alisa D. Gean, MD; Patricia Kunz Howard, PhD, RN, CEN, ENA Representative; Jamshid Ghajar, MD, PhD; Silvana Riggio, MD; David W. Wright, MD; Robert L. Wears, MD, MS, Methodologist; Aric Bakshy, MD; Paula Burgess, MD, MPH, Division of Injury Response, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Marlena M. Wald, MLS, MPH, Epidemiologist, Division of Injury Response, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Rhonda R. Whitson, RHIA, Clinical Practice Manager, ACEP

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Relevant industry relationships of panel members: There were no relevant industry relationships disclosed by panel members.

Relevant industry relationships are those relationships with companies associated with products or services that significantly impact the specific aspect of disease addressed in the critical question.

ENDORSER(S)

Emergency Nurses Association - Medical Specialty Society

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

GUIDELINE AVAILABILITY

AVAILABILITY OF COMPANION DOCUMENTS

None available

PATIENT RESOURCES

None available

NGC STATUS

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on November 13, 2008. The information was verified by the guideline developer on January 14, 2009.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

DISCLAIMER

NGC DISCLAIMER

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.


 

 

   
DHHS Logo