Search

Several guidelines on the evaluation of patients with suspected cervical spine trauma in the Emergency Department (ED) exist. High heterogeneity between different guidelines has been reported. Aim of this study was to find areas of agreement and disagreement between guidelines, to identify topics in which further research is needed and to provide an evidence-based cervical spine trauma algorithm for ED physicians. The three most relevant guidelines published on cervical spine trauma in the last 10 years were selected screening websites of the main scientific societies and through the comparison of a normalized Google Scholar and SCOPUS citation index. We compared the selected guidelines through seven a-priori defined questions. In case of disagreement between the guidelines or if the quality of evidence appeared low, evidence from published systematic reviews on the topic was added to build an evidence-based algorithm for approach to spinal trauma in the ED. The three selected guidelines were: NICE 2016, Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma 2009 and American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2013. We found complete agreement on one question, partial agreement for one questions, no agreement for two questions, while agreement was not assessable for 3 questions. The agreement between different guidelines and the evidence on which recommendations are based is low. An attempt to build an evidence-based algorithm has been made. More studies are needed on many topics.

The diffusion of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide prompted the World Health Organization to declare the status of pandemic. The molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is based on the detection of viral RNA on different biological specimens. Unfortunately, the test may require several hours to be performed. In the present study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of lung point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a cohort of symptomatic patients admitted to one emergency department (ED) in a high-prevalence setting. This retrospective study enrolled all patients who visited one ED with suspected respiratory infection in March 2020. All the patients were tested (usually twice if the first was negative) for SARS-CoV-2 on ED admission. The reference standard was considered positive if at least one specimen was positive. If all the specimens tested negative, the reference was considered negative. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. Of the 444 symptomatic patients who were admitted to the ED in the study period, the result of the lung POCUS test was available for 384 (86.5%). The sensitivity of the test was 92.0% (95% CI 88.2–94.9%), and the specificity was 64.9% (95% CI 54.6–74.4%). We observed a prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection of 74.7%. In this setting, the positive and negative predicted values were 88.6% (95% CI 84.4–92.0) and 73.3% (95% CI 62.6–82.2%), respectively. Lung POCUS is a sensitive first-line screening tool for ED patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11739-020-02524-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.