Investigations and whiplash

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 51 , No. 5 , June 2009 , Pages 214 ICBC

Earlier articles have discussed history and physical examination of the patient with whiplash-associated disorders. This article provides a brief overview of the role of imaging studies.

Given the desire of the patient and the physician for a specific definition of injuries sustained in a whiplash type of neck injury and also the difficulty in isolating a definitive cause of neck pain by physical examination, it is tempting to turn to radiological investigations in an attempt to clarify the situation. Unfortunately, imaging techniques, despite their increasing sophistication, are often not helpful in diagnosis and management. Moreover, they may report findings that have little to do with the neck pain being experienced.[1] Degenerative changes are common in asymptomatic patients, particularly in older individuals. These changes are not well correlated with neck pain or cervicogenic headache.

X-ray, CT, and MRI
The Canadian C-Spine Rule is an algorithm for deciding when to undertake neck X-rays on a patient who is stable and alert (Glasgow Coma Scale 15/15). It was developed by Stiell and colleagues.[2] Their article is helpful and is available in full on the College Library web site. As you can see from the Figure,[3] cervical X-rays are not indicated for the patient under age 65 years who is involved in a simple rear-end collision, particularly if there are no red flags such as midline pain, pain that began immediately after the collision, or neurological signs or symptoms. Patients who have one or more red flags and the possibility of a fracture will most likely have their initial presentation to the emergency department rather than to your office.

In my opinion there may be other indications for imaging, for instance the patient with increasing or night pain and pre-existing or coexisting significant risk factors for fracture.

Nordin and colleagues[4] undertook a systematic review of the literature for evidence-based assessment of neck pain. Their research indicated that:
• History and physical screening protocols were most predictive in low-risk individuals.
• MRI findings were not statistically correlated with whiplash injury or neck pain.
• CT scans had better validity than X-rays for detecting fracture in adults in high-risk and multi-injured blunt neck trauma.

CT scanning may be used, particularly to elucidate bony details, and MRI for delineation of soft tissue lesions. Be aware that a significant proportion of the normal population will show significant morphological changes on imaging that do not correlate with symptoms and do not have a causal relationship with the whiplash injury.[5,6]

Kongsted and colleagues[7] conducted a prospective trial on 178 patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) and no fracture or dislocation as examined by X-ray. The participants received an MRI within 2 weeks of the MVA and again at 3 months. They were evaluated clinically initially and again at 3 and 12 months. MRI findings were found not to be predictive of clinical outcome and not correlated with pain or disability.

A review of the roles of CT and MRI in the evaluation of WAD and the safety issues of these techniques are reported by Bagley.[8] This is a reasonable summary. I hope this article has given you some helpful information on when to and when not to order imaging studies on a patient with whiplash. If you have suggestions for further articles please submit them to me at Laura.Jensen@ICBC.com.

—L.A. Jensen, MD
Medical Community Liaison

Laura Jensen, MD,. Investigations and whiplash. BCMJ, Vol. 51, No. 5, June, 2009, Page(s) 214 - ICBC.



Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.


For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply