Table 4 Evaluation of the association between patients’ blood alcohol concentration in the emergency department and resource utilization, using four different analytical approaches
OR (95% CI)
ABCD
x Ray of cervical spine0.81 (0.77 to 0.85)0.81 (0.54 to 1.2)0.64 (0.61 to 0.68)0.64 (0.42 to 1.01)
CT scan
    Head1.84 (1.78 to 1.9)1.84 (1.49 to 2.28)1.26 (1.20 to 1.33)1.26 (0.98 to 1.64)
    Thorax0.94 (0.90 to 0.99)0.94 (0.80 to 1.11)0.87 (0.77 to 0.98)0.87 (0.67 to 1.12)
    Abdomen1.33 (1.28 to 1.39)1.33 (1.09 to 1.64)1.00 (0.94 to 1.06)1.00 (0.78 to 1.27)
Abdominal ultrasonography1.53 (1.45 to 1.61)1.53 (1.06 to 2.20)1.25 (1.18 to 1.31)1.25 (0.91 to 1.72)
Diagnostic peritoneal lavage1.4 (1.34 to 1.46)1.4 (0.90 to 2.17)1.46 (1.38 to 1.55)1.46 (0.98 to 2.19)
Endotracheal intubation1.62 (1.53 to 1.73)1.62 (1.39 to 1.90)1.34 (1.25 to 1.43)1.34 (1.15 to 1.56)
  • Each row shows the result of a separate multivariable analysis, adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity (white, black, Hispanic), type of insurance (self-pay, Medicaid, other types of insurance), type (blunt vs penetrating) and mechanism of injury, and injury severity score.

  • A, Complete case analysis, ignoring the clustering issue; B, complete case analysis, considering the clustering issue; C, using imputed data, ignoring the clustering issue; D, using imputed data, considering the clustering issue.