Robert J. Brison

BACKGROUND: The Canadian C-Spine (cervical-spine) Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Low-Risk Criteria (NLC) are decision rules to guide the use of cervical-spine radiography in patients with trauma. It is unclear how the two decision rules compare in terms of clinical performance. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in nine Canadian emergency departments comparing the CCR and NLC as applied to alert patients with trauma who were in stable condition. The CCR and NLC were interpreted by 394 physicians for patients before radiography. RESULTS: Among the 8283 patients, 169 (2.0 percent) had clinically important cervical-spine injuries. In 845 (10.2 percent) of the patients, physicians did not evaluate range of motion as required by the CCR algorithm. In analyses that excluded these indeterminate cases, the CCR was more sensitive than the NLC (99.4 percent vs. 90.7 percent, P<0.001) and more specific (45.1 percent vs. 36.8 percent, P<0.001) for injury, and its use would have resulted in lower radiography rates (55.9 percent vs. 66.6 percent, P<0.001). In secondary analyses that included all patients, the sensitivity and specificity of CCR, assuming that the indeterminate cases were all positive, were 99.4 percent and 40.4 percent, respectively (P<0.001 for both comparisons with the NLC). Assuming that the CCR was negative for all indeterminate cases, these rates were 95.3 percent (P=0.09 for the comparison with the NLC) and 50.7 percent (P=0.001). The CCR would have missed 1 patient and the NLC would have missed 16 patients with important injuries. CONCLUSIONS: For alert patients with trauma who are in stable condition, the CCR is superior to the NLC with respect to sensitivity and specificity for cervical-spine injury, and its use would result in reduced rates of radiography.

BACKGROUND: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we studied the effectiveness of prednisone in reducing the risk of relapse after outpatient exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We enrolled 147 patients who were being discharged from the emergency department after an exacerbation of COPD and randomly assigned them to 10 days of treatment with 40 mg of oral prednisone once daily or identical-appearing placebo. All patients received oral antibiotics for 10 days, plus inhaled bronchodilators. The primary end point was relapse, defined as an unscheduled visit to a physician's office or a return to the emergency department because of worsening dyspnea, within 30 days after randomization. RESULTS: The overall rate of relapse at 30 days was lower in the prednisone group than in the placebo group (27 percent vs. 43 percent, P=0.05), and the time to relapse was prolonged in those taking prednisone (P=0.04). After 10 days of therapy, patients in the prednisone group had greater improvements in forced expiratory volume in one second than did patients in the placebo group (mean [+/-SD] increase from base line, 34+/-42 percent vs. 15+/-31 percent; P=0.007). Patients in the prednisone group also had significant improvements in dyspnea, as measured by the transitional dyspnea index (P=0.04) and by the dyspnea domain of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Index Questionnaire (P=0.02), but not in health-related quality of life (P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient treatment with oral prednisone offers a small advantage over placebo in treating patients who are discharged from the emergency department with an exacerbation of COPD.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether risks for childhood injury vary according to socioeconomic gradients. DESIGN: Population based, retrospective study. The percentage of individuals living below the poverty line (described ecologically using census data) was the primary measure of socioeconomic status. SETTING: Catchment area of a tertiary medical centre that provides emergency services to all area residents. Area residents aged 0-19 years during 1996 were included. OBSERVATIONS: Injuries that occurred during 1996 were identified by an emergency department based surveillance system. The study population was divided into socioeconomic grades based upon percentages of area residents living below the poverty line. Multiple Poisson regression analyses were used to quantify associations and assess the statistical significance of trends. RESULTS: 5894 childhood injuries were identified among 35380 eligible children; 985 children with missing socioeconomic data were excluded. A consistent relation between poverty and injury was evident. Children in the highest grade (indicating higher poverty levels) experienced injury rates that were 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.48 to 1.89) higher than those in the lowest grade (adjusted relative risk for grades 1-V: 1.00,1.10,1.22,1.42, 1.67; Ptrend < 0.001). These patterns were observed within age/sex strata; for home, recreational, and fall injuries; and for injuries of minor and moderate severities. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic differences in childhood injury parallel mortality and morbidity gradients identified in adult populations. This study confirms that this health gradient is observable in a population of children using emergency department data. Given the population based nature of this study, these findings are likely to be reflected in other settings. The results suggest the need for targeted injury prevention efforts among children from economically disadvantaged populations, although the exact requirements of the optimal prevention approach remain elusive.