The cost-effectiveness of diagnostic management strategies for adults with minor head injury


      Study objective

      To estimate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic management strategies for adults with minor head injury.


      A mathematical model was constructed to evaluate the incremental costs and effectiveness (Quality Adjusted Life years Gained, QALYs) of ten diagnostic management strategies for adults with minor head injuries. Secondary analyses were undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of hospital admission compared to discharge home and to explore the cost-effectiveness of strategies when no responsible adult was available to observe the patient after discharge.


      The apparent optimal strategy was based on the high and medium risk Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHRhm), although the costs and outcomes associated with each strategy were broadly similar. Hospital admission for patients with non-neurosurgical injury on CT dominated discharge home, whilst hospital admission for clinically normal patients with a normal CT was not cost-effective compared to discharge home with or without a responsible adult at £39 and £2.5 million per QALY, respectively.
      A selective CT strategy with discharge home if the CT scan was normal remained optimal compared to not investigating or CT scanning all patients when there was no responsible adult available to observe them after discharge.


      Our economic analysis confirms that the recent extension of access to CT scanning for minor head injury is appropriate. Liberal use of CT scanning based on a high sensitivity decision rule is not only effective but also cost-saving. The cost of CT scanning is very small compared to the estimated cost of caring for patients with brain injury worsened by delayed treatment. It is recommended therefore that all hospitals receiving patients with minor head injury should have unrestricted access to CT scanning for use in conjunction with evidence based guidelines.
      Provisionally the CCHRhm decision rule appears to be the best strategy although there is considerable uncertainty around the optimal decision rule. However, the CCHRhm rule appears to be the most widely validated and it therefore seems appropriate to conclude that the CCHRhm rule has the best evidence to support its use.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to Injury
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
        Head injury – triage, assessment, investigation and early management of head injury in infants, children and adults (NICE Clinical Guideline No. 56).
        NICE, London2007
        • Swann I.J.
        • Teasdale G.M.
        Current concepts in the management of patients with so-called ‘minor’ or ‘mild’ head injury.
        Trauma. 1999; 1: 143-155
        • Stiell I.G.
        • Wells G.A.
        • Vandemheen K.
        • Clement C.
        • Lesiuk H.
        • Laupacis A.
        • et al.
        The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury.
        Lancet. 2001; 357: 1319-1396
        • Servadei F.
        • Teasdale G.
        • Merry G.
        • Neurotraumatology Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies
        Defining acute mild head injury in adults: a proposal based on prognostic factors, diagnosis, and management.
        J Neurotrauma. 2001; 18: 657-664
        • Haydel M.J.
        • Preston C.A.
        • Mills T.J.
        • Luber S.
        • Blaudeau E.
        • DeBlieux M.C.
        Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury.
        N Eng J Med. 2000; 343: 100-105
        • Mower W.R.H.
        • Hoffman H.J.
        • Herbert M.
        • Wolfson A.B.
        • Pollack C.
        • Zucker M.
        Developing a decision instrument to guide computed tomographic imaging of blunt head injury patients.
        J Trauma: Injury Infect Crit Care. 2005; 59: 954-959
        • Ingebrigtsen T.
        • Romner B.
        • Kock-Jensen C.
        • Ingebrigtsen T.
        • Romner B.
        • Kock-Jensen C.
        Scandinavian guidelines for initial management of minimal, mild, and moderate head injuries. The Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee.
        J Trauma: Injury Infect Crit Care. 2000; 48: 760-766
        • Stein S.C.
        • Burnett M.G.
        • Glick H.A.
        Indications for CT scanning in mild traumatic brain injury: a cost-effectiveness study.
        J Trauma: Injury Infect Crit Care. 2006; 61: 558-566
        • Smits M.
        • Dippel D.W.
        • Nederkoorn P.J.
        • Dekker H.M.
        • Vos P.E.
        • Kool D.R.
        • et al.
        Minor head injury: CT-based strategies for management – a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Radiology. 2010; 254: 532-540
        • Goodacre S.
        Hospital admissions with head injury following publication of NICE guidance.
        Emerg Med J. 2008; 25: 556-557
        • Harnan S.E.
        • Pickering A.
        • Pandor A.
        • Goodacre S.W.
        Clinical decision rules for adults with minor head injury: a systematic review.
        J Trauma. 2011; 71: 245-251
        • Stein S.C.
        • Fabbri A.
        • Servadei F.
        • Glick H.A.
        A critical comparison of clinical decision instruments for computed tomographic scanning in mild closed traumatic brain injury in adolescents and adults.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 53: 180-188
        • Office for National Statistics (ONS)
        United Kingdom, interim life tables 1980–82 to 2006–2008.
        ONS, London2008
      1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London; NICE: 2008. Available at: [accessed 12.05.11].

        • Smits M.
        • Dippel D.W.
        • Nederkoorn P.J.
        • de Haan G.G.
        • Dekker H.M.
        • Vos P.
        • et al.
        Predicting intracranial traumatic findings on computed tomography in patients with minor head injury: the CHIP prediction rule.
        Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146: 397-405
        • Fabbri A.
        • Servadei F.
        • Marchesini G.
        • Stein S.C.
        • Vandelli A.
        Observational approach to subjects with mild-to-moderate head injury and initial non-neurosurgical lesions.
        J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008; 79: 1180-1185
        • Af Geijerstam J.L.
        • Britton M.
        Mild head injury: reliability of early computed tomographic findings in triage for admission.
        Emerg Med J. 2005; 22: 103-107
        • Haselsberger K.
        • Pucher R.
        • Auer L.M.
        Prognosis after acute subdural or epidural haemorrhage.
        Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1988; 90: 111-116
      2. National Health Service, Health Resources Grouper version 4. Available at: [accessed 12.05.11].

        • Department of Health
        National schedule of reference costs 2007–08 for NHS trusts.
        Department of Health, London2010
        • Beecham J.
        • Perkins M.
        • Snell T.
        • Knapp M.
        Treatment paths and costs for young adults with acquired brain injury in the United Kingdom.
        Brain Inj. 2009; 23: 30-38
        • The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS
        Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state – second of two parts.
        N Engl J Med. 1995; 333: 130
        • Curtis L.
        Unit costs of health and social care 2009.
        Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), University of Kent2009
        • Garside R.
        • Pitt M.
        • Anderson R.
        • Rogers G.
        • Dyer M.
        • Mealing S.
        • et al.
        The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
        Health Technol Assess. 2007; 11: 1-221
        • Aoki N.
        • Kitahara T.
        Management of unruptured intracranial aneuysm in Japan: a Markovian decision analysis with utility measurements based on the Glasgow Outcome Scale.
        Med Decis Making. 1998; 18: 357-364
        • Stein S.C.
        • Hurst R.W.
        • Sonnad S.S.
        Meta-analysis of cranial CT scans in children. A mathematical model to predict radiation-induced tumors.
        Pediatr Neurosurg. 2008; 44: 448-457
        • National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)
        X-rays, how safe are they?.
        NRPB, Oxon2001
        • Claxton K.
        • Sculpher M.
        • McCabe C.
        • Briggs A.
        • Akehurst R.
        • Buxton M.
        • et al.
        Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra.
        Health Econ. 2005; 14: 339-347
        • Cantor S.B.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance and ethics: a quantative assessment.
        Med Decis Making. 1994; 14: 259-265
        • Fenwick E.
        • Claxton K.
        • Sculpher M.
        Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
        Health Econ. 2001; 10: 779-787