Resident 360 Study Plans on AMBOSS
Find all Resident 360 study plans on AMBOSS
Fast Facts
A brief refresher with useful tables, figures, and research summaries
Clinical Rules and Guidance
In this section, we review the following clinical rules and provide links to relevant online calculators and videos.
Clinical Rules
HEAD
Neuroimaging guidelines for head injury are designed to determine which patients do or do not require emergency head CT. These guidelines are derived from large retrospective and often prospective studies that may have different endpoints (e.g., “clinically significant” brain injury vs. any positive CT finding) and result in slightly different clinical criteria. In general, neuroimaging is recommended for any patient with a positive finding suggested by one of the following rules.
Canadian CT Head Injury/Trauma Rule
The Canadian CT head injury rule applies to patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score (GCS) of 13-15 with loss of consciousness (LOC), amnesia to the head injury event, or confusion. In alcohol-intoxicated patients, the sensitivity has been reported to be 70% for “clinically important” brain injury. Exclusions include age <16 years, anticoagulation, or seizure after injury.
High-risk criteria (derived with endpoint of need for neurosurgical intervention):
If any of the following criteria are positive, obtain CT scan:
GCS <15 within 2 hours after injury
suspected open or depressed skull fracture
any sign of basilar skull fracture (hemotympanum, raccoon eyes, Battle sign—mastoid ecchymosis, cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] otorrhea or rhinorrhea, cranial nerve abnormality)
≥2 episodes of vomiting
age ≥65 years
Medium-risk criteria (in addition to the above, rules out “clinically important” brain injury):
If any of the following criteria are positive, obtain CT scan:
amnesia retrograde to the event ≥30 minutes
“dangerous” mechanism (e.g., pedestrian struck by motor vehicle, occupant ejected from motor vehicle, fall from >3 feet or >5 stairs, fall from more than 2 times patient’s height, and other events deemed dangerous by physician)
New Orleans/Charity Head Trauma/Injury Rule
These criteria are intended for use in patients with LOC who are neurologically normal (GCS=15 and normal brief neurological exam). If any of the following criteria are positive, consider CT:
headache
vomiting
age >60 years
alcohol or drug intoxication
persistent anterograde amnesia (short-term memory deficits)
visible trauma above the clavicle
seizure
The New Orleans and Canadian Clinical Decision Rules for CT after Concussion |
---|
New Orleans Criteria — Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 Headache Vomiting Age >60 yr Drug or alcohol intoxication Persistent anterograde amnesia (deficits in short-term memory) Evidence of traumatic soft-tissue or bone injury above clavicles Seizure Canadian CT Head Rule — Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13-15 for patients 16 years and older High risk of neurosurgical intervention Glasgow Coma Scale score <15 within 2 hr after injury Suspected open or depressed skull fracture Any sign of basilar skull fracture Two or more episodes of vomiting Age >65 yr Moderate risk of brain injury detected by CT Retrograde amnesia for ≥30 min Dangerous mechanism |
NEXUS Criteria for Head Imaging
The NEXUS criteria identify patients who could safely be excluded from imaging. Head CT is not required if none of the following are present:
Head CT is not required if none of the following are present:
age ≥ 65 years
evidence of significant skull fracture
scalp hematoma
neurologic deficit
altered level of alertness
abnormal behavior
coagulopathy
recurrent or forceful vomiting
PECARN Pediatric Head Injury/Trauma Algorithm
The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) clinical rule is for pediatric head trauma. Like the head rules described above, this validated algorithm guides decisions regarding the need for neuroimaging. Of note, physician experience and parental preference are important considerations for the intermediate-risk group and did factor into the ultimate results of the study.
![[Image]](content_item_media_uploads/PECARN_alg.jpg)
(Reprinted from Identification of children at very low risk of clinically-important brain injuries after head trauma:a prospective cohort study. The Lancet 2009 Oct 3;374:1160, with permission from Elsevier.)
NIH Stroke Scale/Score
This scale was developed to quantify the severity of a stroke in the acute setting. Higher scores correlate with increased severity and worse clinical outcomes. Documentation of the scale is important for neurologists; however, it should not delay consultations, workup, or care. This scale is long and complicated. Instructions and details of the scale can be found here.
Although a score <4 generally is associated with good clinical outcome and functional independence, it should not preclude the need for imaging.
Response | Scoring Definition |
---|---|
Level of Consciousness (LOC) | Alert; keenly responsive (0) Not alert; arousable by minor stimulation (1) Not alert; requires repeated stimulation (2) Unresponsive; responds only with reflex (3) LOC questions (Ask age; current month): Answers both questions correctly (0) Answers one question correctly (1) Answers neither question correctly (2) LOC commands (close eyes; squeeze hand): Performs both tasks correctly (0) Performs one task correctly (1) Performs neither task correctly (2) |
Best Gaze | Normal (0) Partial gaze palsy; gaze is abnormal (1) Forced deviation or total gaze paresis (2) |
Best Visual Field | No visual loss (0) Partial hemianopia (1) Complete hemianopia (2) Bilateral hemianopia (3) |
Facial Palsy | Normal symmetrical movements (0) Minor paralysis (1) Partial paralysis (2) Complete paralysis of one or both sides (3) |
Motor Arm (left and right) | No drift; limb holds for full 10 seconds (0) Drift; limb holds but drifts down (1) Some effort against gravity; cannot maintain (2) No effort against gravity; limb falls (3) No movement (4) Amputation or joint fusion, explain: |
Motor Leg (left and right) | No drift; leg holds for full 5 seconds (0) Drift; leg falls by the end of 5 seconds (1) Some effort against gravity (2) No effort against gravity (3) No movement (4) Amputation or joint fusion, explain: |
Limb Ataxia | Absent (0) Present in one limb (1) Present in two limbs (2) Amputation or joint fusion, explain: |
Sensory | Normal; no sensory loss (0) Mild-to-moderate sensory loss (1) Severe or total sensory loss (2) |
Best Language | No aphasia; normal (0) Mild-to-moderate aphasia (1) Severe aphasia (2) Mute, global aphasia (3) |
Dysarthria | Normal (0) Mild-to-moderate dysarthria (1) Severe dysarthria (2) Intubated or other physical barrier, explain: |
Extinction and Inattention (formerly Neglect) | No abnormality (0) Visual, tactile, auditory, spatial, or personal inattention (1) Profound hemi-inattention (2) |
Otorhinolaryngology (ENT)
Centor Score (Modified/McIsaac) for Strep Pharyngitis
This score is for use only in patients with recent-onset (≤3 days) acute pharyngitis. It is used to predict which patients will have culture-confirmed streptococcal infections to minimize testing.
A score 0-1: no testing required
A score >1: test and treat according to result
Modified Centor Score criteria:
age 3-14 years (+1)
age 15-44 years (0)
age ≥45 years (-1)
exudate or swelling on tonsils (+1)
tender/swollen anterior cervical lymph nodes (+1)
fever >38°C, 100.4°F (+1)
cough present (0)
cough absent (+1)
Neck
NEXUS Criteria for C-Spine Imaging
These criteria were derived to identify patients who are eligible to be cleared clinically, without imaging. If no findings are present, risk of dangerous cervical spine fracture is very low.
If any of the following criteria are positive, obtain CT scan:
altered level of consciousness
intoxication
distracting injury
focal neurologic deficit
midline cervical spinal tenderness to palpation
Canadian C-Spine Rule
The Canadian C-Spine Rule is a validated decision rule that can be used to safely rule out cervical-spine injury in alert, stable trauma patients without the need to obtain radiographic images. It can also be used for stable trauma patients. In contrast to NEXUS (described above), the rule can be used if a patient is alert and cooperative, regardless of blood alcohol content.
However, strict exclusion criteria include the following:
Canadian C-Spine Rule exclusion criteria:
nontrauma patient
GCS <15
unstable vital signs
age <16 years
acute paralysis
known vertebral disease
previous C-spine surgery
![[Image]](content_item_media_uploads/Canadian_C-Spine_rule.jpg)
(Source: The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria in Patients with Trauma. N Engl J Med 2003.)
Extremities
Ottawa Knee Rule
Knee imaging is not warranted in patients identified to be at low risk for fracture. This rule should be applied to all patients age ≥2 years with knee pain/tenderness in the trauma setting.
Patients who do not meet any of the following criteria do not need an x-ray. If one or more of the conditions are met, then imaging is recommended.
age ≥55
isolated tenderness of the patella (no other bony tenderness)
tenderness at the fibular head
unable to flex knee to 90°
unable to bear weight both immediately and in emergency department (ED) (four steps, limping is okay)
Ottawa Ankle Rule
This rule was also developed to reduce the use of unnecessary radiographs. You can apply this rule for patients age ≥2 years to rule out clinically significant ankle and midfoot fractures after trauma without radiograph.
Patients who do not meet any of the following criteria noted in the following image do not need an ankle or foot radiograph. Those that fulfill either the foot or ankle criteria need an x-ray of the respective body part.
![[Image]](content_item_media_uploads/Ottawa_Ankle_Rule.jpg)
(Reprinted from Stiell IG et al. A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med 21:384-90, 1992, with permission from Elsevier.)
Wells Criteria for Deep-vein Thrombosis
According to the Wells clinical decision rule, an ultrasound to rule out deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) is not necessary in patients deemed low risk with a negative D-dimer test result.
Interpretation of the Wells score:
A score of 0: DVT unlikely
If the D dimer is negative, no further imaging is required.
If the D dimer is positive, obtain an ultrasound.
A negative ultrasound is sufficient to rule out DVT.
If ultrasound is positive, consider treatment with anticoagulation.
A score of 1-2: moderate risk
If high-sensitivity D dimer is negative, no further imaging is required.
If the D dimer is positive, obtain an ultrasound.
A negative ultrasound is sufficient to rule out DVT.
If ultrasound is positive, consider treatment with anticoagulation.
A score of ≥3: likely DVT
All patients require ultrasound and D-dimer test.
If ultrasound is positive, treat with anticoagulation.
If the D dimer is positive and ultrasound is negative, repeat ultrasound in 1 week.
If the D dimer and ultrasound are negative, no further workup required.
Clinical Features | Score |
---|---|
Active cancer | +1 |
Bedridden recently (>3 days) or major surgery within 4 weeks | +1 |
Calf swelling more than 3 cm compared to the other leg | +1 |
Collateral (nonvaricose) superficial veins present | +1 |
Entire leg swollen | +1 |
Localized tenderness along the deep venous system | +1 |
Pitting edema confined to the symptomatic leg | +1 |
Paralysis, paresis, or recent immobilization to the lower extremity | +1 |
Previously documented DVT | +1 |
Alternative diagnoses to DVT as likely or more likely | -2 |
Heart
HEART Score for Major Cardiac Events
Chest pain is a common complaint in the emergency department. This score predicts the 6-week risk of major cardiac events, thus helping clinicians determine appropriate disposition.
A score of 0-3: appropriate to discharge
A score of 4-6: admit to the hospital
A score of ≥7: candidates for early invasive measures
HEART Score criteria:
slightly suspicious history (0)
moderately suspicious history (+1)
highly suspicious history (+2)
normal electrocardiogram (ECG) (0)
nonspecific repolarization disturbance in the ECG (+1)
significant ST depression (+2)
age <45 years (0)
age 45 to 65 years (+1)
age >65 years (+2)
no known risk factors (0)
one or two risk factors (+1)
more than three risk factors or history of arteriosclerotic disease (+2)
initial troponin within normal limit (0)
initial troponin one or two times the normal limit (+1)
initial troponin more than two times normal limit (+2)
San Francisco Syncope Rule
The San Francisco Syncope rule can be used to separate patients with syncope into high-risk and low-risk groups. The high-risk group is associated with serious adverse outcomes (e.g., death, myocardial infarction [MI], arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism [PE]) within 30 days. The rule has been studied in several different settings and countries. Some controversy exists about the sensitivity of this rule to predict a bad outcome, particularly in different geographic regions.
If the patient meets any of the following criteria, he/she cannot be considered low risk:
history of congestive heart failure
hematocrit <30%
ECG abnormal (ECG changed, or any non-sinus rhythm on ECG or monitoring)
symptoms of shortness of breath
systolic BP <90 mm Hg at triage
Boston Syncope Rule
This rule predicts adverse events or need for critical interventions in patients who had syncope.
A patient with one of the risk factors should be admitted. If the patient does not have any of the risk factors, the patient can be safely discharged home. In one study, use of the Boston Syncope criteria reduced admissions by 11%. The OESIL Score for syncope estimates 12-month all-cause mortality in patients presenting with syncope
Lungs
Wells Criteria for Pulmonary Embolism
The Wells criteria for pulmonary embolism (PE) is used to determine the pretest probability of PE, which in turn influences the best next steps to rule out or rule in the diagnosis of PE.
Symptom or Sign | Score |
---|---|
Clinical signs and symptoms of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) | 3 |
Tachycardia (>100 beats/minute) | 1.5 |
Immobilization or surgery in the previous 4 weeks | 1.5 |
Previous DVT or PE | 1.5 |
Hemoptysis | 1 |
Malignancy | 1 |
Alternative diagnoses are less likely than PE | 3 |
The Wells score can be interpreted as follows:
score <2: low risk for PE
score 2-6: intermediate risk for PE
score >6: high risk for PE
Low-Risk Wells Score: Patients who have a Wells score <2 are at low risk for PE (incidence, 1.3%) and are typically further risk stratified using the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC):
age <50 years
heart rate <100 beats per minute
oxyhemoglobin saturation ≥95%
no hemoptysis
no estrogen use
no prior DVT or PE
no unilateral leg swelling
no surgery or trauma requiring hospitalization within the prior 4 weeks
If all eight of these criteria are met, then no further testing is needed. If any of the criteria are not met, then a D-dimer measurement can be helpful. A normal value can help rule out PE and obviate the need for imaging.
Intermediate-Risk Wells Score: In intermediate-risk patients (Wells score of 2-6; incidence of PE, 16.2%), a D-dimer level is indicated. If the D-dimer level is <0.5 µg/mL, further imaging is typically not needed. However, the full clinical picture should be taken into account for patients who fall into this group. Imaging to rule out PE may be appropriate for some intermediate-risk patients, regardless of D-dimer value. This may apply to older patients, those with cardiopulmonary compromise, those with a Wells score at the upper end of the intermediate range, and other patients where the clinical evaluation raises concern for PE beyond what is reflected in the Wells score.
High-Risk Wells Score: Imaging (usually CT angiography) should be obtained in all high-risk patients (Wells score >6; incidence of PE, 37.5%). There is no role for measuring a D-dimer level in these patients, as a normal D-dimer level does not adequately rule out PE.
The American College of Physicians recommends the following algorithm for evaluating patients with suspected PE using the different clinical guidelines.
![[Image]](content_item_media_uploads/Pathway_Suspected_PE.jpg)
(From Annals of Internal Medicine, Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Copyright © [2015] American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with the permission of American College of Physicians, Inc.)
![[Image]](content_item_media_uploads/Suggestions_Suspected_PE.jpg)
(From Annals of Internal Medicine, Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Copyright © [2015] American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with the permission of American College of Physicians, Inc.)
CURB-65 Score for Pneumonia Severity
This clinical guideline was assigned to determine the disposition of the patient by estimating the mortality of community-acquired pneumonia.
A score of 0-1: outpatient care
A score of 2-3: inpatient or observation admission
A score of >3: inpatient admission with consideration for ICU for the score >4
CURB-65 Criteria
Confusion (+1)
blood Urea nitrogen (BUN) >19 mg/dL (+1)
Respiratory rate ≥30 (+1)
systolic BP <90 or diastolic BP ≤60 (+1)
age ≥65 (+1)
Abdomen
Alvarado Score for Acute Appendicitis
The Alvarado Score is used to determine the likelihood of appendicitis in patients with suspected appendicitis.
A score ≤3: rules out appendicitis and generally does not warrant CT for diagnosis
A score of 4-6: indicates that CT will help differentiate the diagnosis
A score ≥7: highly suggestive of appendicitis and prudent to involve early surgical consultation
Alvarado Score criteria:
right lower quadrant tenderness (+2)
elevated temperature (37.3°C or 99.1°F) (+1)
rebound tenderness (+1)
migration of pain to the right lower quadrant (+1)
anorexia (+1)
nausea or vomiting (+1)
leukocytosis >10,000 WBC/mm3 (+2)
leukocyte left shift (+1)
Ranson Criteria for Pancreatitis Mortality
A Ranson score estimates mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis. It has two parts; as ED providers, you calculate the first part while the second part is not included.
A score ≤2: severe pancreatitis unlikely, low risk for mortality
A score ≥3: severe pancreatitis likely, consider ICU care
Ranson Score criteria:
age >55 (+1)
glucose >200 mg/dL(+1)
WBC >16,000 mm3 (+1)
AST >250 (+1)
LDH >350 (+1)
Research
Landmark clinical trials and other important studies
Slaar A et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017.
In this systematic review of three cohort studies that examined NEXUS criteria and the Canadian C-spine rule in pediatric cervical spine injury, diagnostic accuracy was inconclusive due to the small number of studies and the diverse outcomes.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/23950.jpg)
Beckenkamp PR et al. Br J Sports Med 2017.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 66 studies, the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot rules were highly sensitive but had poor specificity.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/23949.jpg)
Costantino G et al. Am J Med 2014.
This meta-analysis retrieved relevant articles that used clinical guidelines versus judgment in syncope patients. Results found that prediction tools did not show better sensitivity, specificity, or prognostic yield compared to clinical judgment in predicting short-term serious outcomes after syncope.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3996.png)
Melki D and Jernberg T. Crit Pathw Cardiol 2013.
The HEART score is useful for identifying lower-risk patients in which admission and further investigation may not be necessary, thus reducing testing and admission rate.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3947.png)
Michaleff ZA et al. CMAJ 2012.
In this comparison of 15 studies with modest methodologic quality and only one direct comparison, the Canadian C-spine Rule appeared to have better diagnostic accuracy than the NEXUS criteria.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3954.png)
Kuppermann N et al. Lancet 2009.
The authors analyzed a large prospective cohort of pediatric patients with head trauma to arrive at the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) prediction rule.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3941.png)
Grossman SA et al. J Emerg Med 2007.
The Boston Syncope Rule, derived from this prospective cohort study, helps emergency practitioners discriminate between patients that require hospitalization and patients that can be safely discharged.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3948.png)
Melniker LA et al. Ann Emerg Med 2006.
This study examined the accuracy of focused assessment with sonography (FAST) in clinical decision making for trauma patients and is one of the first studies that led to modern standards in the evaluation of trauma patients. It emphasizes the use of ultrasound for rapid triage of trauma patients, leading to reduced time, appropriate intervention, shortened hospital stays, and lower costs.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3952.png)
Lim W et al. Thorax 2003.
Data from three prospective studies was used to derive and validate a practical severity assessment model for stratifying adults hospitalized with CAP into different management groups to help clinicians decide a patient’s disposition.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3950.png)
Stiell IG et al. JAMA 2001.
The original Canadian C-Spine Rule was developed from this prospective cohort study of clinically important C-spine injuries evaluated by plain radiography, computed tomography, and follow-up interview. The decision rule is highly sensitive for use of C-spine radiography in alert and stable trauma patients.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3944.png)
Wells PS et al. Ann Intern Med 2001.
The Well’s PE criteria is used to determine a patient’s pretest probability of pulmonary embolism.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3949.png)
Haydel MJ et al. N Engl J Med 2000.
This study formed the basis for the New Orleans/Charity Head Trauma/Injury Rule.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3940.png)
McIsaac WJ et al. Can Med Assoc J 1998.
This study modified and validated Centor’s score in a prospective cohort. The score is recommended to reduce unnecessary testing and antibiotics in low-risk patients.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3943.png)
Stiell IG et al. JAMA 1993.
After refinement and validation, the original Ottawa Ankle Rules have been shown to be 100% sensitive in identifying fractures and safely reducing the number of radiographs ordered in patients with ankle injuries by one-third.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3946.png)
Hoffman JR et al. Ann Emerg Med 1988.
The original NEXUS study is a prospective multicenter study that defined the sensitivity of clinical criteria for detecting significant cervical-spine injury.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3945.png)
Alvarado A. Ann Emerg Med 1986.
This retrospective study identified eight predictive factors that are useful in making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and formed the basis for the Alvarado score.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3951.png)
Centor RM et al. Med Decis Making 1981.
The authors prospectively tested 286 patients in 1980 and derived a score that predicted the probability of a positive group A beta Streptococcus culture. The rule was modified and validated in 1998 and remains valid today.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3942.png)
Reviews
The best overviews of the literature on this topic
Kuo DC et al. J Emerg Med 2015.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3955.png)
Stein SC et al. Ann Emerg Med 2009.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3953.png)
Guidelines
The current guidelines from the major specialty associations in the field
Kearon C et al. Chest 2016.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3959.png)
Godwin SA et al. Ann Emerg Med 2014.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/4072.png)
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly 2011.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3960.png)
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly 2010.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3961.png)
Hoff WS et al. J Trauma 2002.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3958.png)
Marler JR et al. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 1997.
![[Image]](content_item_thumbnails/3957.png)