Literature DB >> 11944759

Comparison of diagnostic decision rules and structured data collection in assessment of acute ankle injury.

Afina S Glas1, Bas A C M Pijnenburg, Jeroen G Lijmer, Kjell Bogaard, Roos Marnix A J de, Johannes N Keeman, Rudolf M J M Butzelaar, Patrick M M Bossuyt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ankle decision rules help to determine which patients with ankle injuries should undergo radiography. However, these rules are limited by imperfect generalizability and sensitivity. The judgement of physicians, aided by structured data collection, is a potential alternative. We compared the diagnostic performance of 2 decision rules with the performance of physicians, aided by structured data collection, in ruling out fracture in patients with acute ankle injury.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with acute ankle injury who visited the emergency department of a teaching community hospital in Amsterdam were included in the study. After taking the patient's history and performing a physical examination, the surgical resident in each case completed a specially developed structured data form incorporating all of the variables in the Ottawa and Leiden ankle rules, as well as some additional variables. The form then asked whether the resident thought radiography was necessary. Each patient then underwent ankle and midfoot radiography. The films were independently interpreted by a radiologist and a trauma surgeon, who were both blinded to the information on the data form. Sensitivity, specificity and the percentage of patients for whom radiography was recommended were the main outcome measures.
RESULTS: Of 690 consecutive patients, 647 met the inclusion criteria. Fractures were observed in 74 (11%) of these patients. Sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80% to 95%) for the Ottawa ankle rules, 80% (95% CI 69% to 88%) for the Leiden ankle rule and 82% (95% CI 72% to 90%) for physicians' judgement. Specificity was 26% (95% CI 23% to 30%), 59% (95% CI 55% to 63%) and 68% (95% CI 64% to 71%) respectively. Radiography was recommended in 76% (95% CI 72% to 79%), 46% (95% CI 42% to 50%) and 38% (95% CI 34% to 42%) of cases respectively. The Ottawa rules missed 8 fractures, of which 1 was clinically significant, the Leiden rule missed 15 fractures, of which 5 were clinically significant, and the residents missed 13 fractures, of which 1 was clinically significant.
INTERPRETATION: Physicians' judgement, aided by structured data collection, was similar to existing international and local decision rules in terms of sensitivity in identifying cases requiring radiography and may outperform these prediction rules in terms of minimizing radiographic examinations for patients with ankle trauma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11944759      PMCID: PMC99451     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  18 in total

1.  Prospective survey to verify the Ottawa ankle rules.

Authors:  S Perry; N Raby; P T Grant
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1999-07

2.  Ottawa ankle rules and the diabetic foot.

Authors:  S A McLaughlin; D S Binder; D P Sklar
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.721

3.  Estimating the probability of acute appendicitis using clinical criteria of a structured record sheet: the physician against the computer.

Authors:  S Hallan; A Asberg; T H Edna
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  1997-06

4.  A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries.

Authors:  I G Stiell; G H Greenberg; R D McKnight; R C Nair; I McDowell; J R Worthington
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 5.721

5.  Prospective evaluation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in a university sports medicine center. With a modification to increase specificity for identifying malleolar fractures.

Authors:  J J Leddy; R J Smolinski; J Lawrence; J L Snyder; R L Priore
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1998 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information.

Authors:  A C Justice; K E Covinsky; J A Berlin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-03-16       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Structured data collection improves the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Authors:  H Körner; K Söndenaa; J A Söreide; E Andersen; A Nysted; T H Lende
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Failed validation of a clinical decision rule for the use of radiography in acute ankle injury.

Authors:  A M Kelly; D Richards; L Kerr; J Grant; P O'Donovan; K Basire; R Graham
Journal:  N Z Med J       Date:  1994-07-27

9.  Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation.

Authors:  I G Stiell; G H Greenberg; R D McKnight; R C Nair; I McDowell; M Reardon; J P Stewart; J Maloney
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-03-03       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: physicians' attitudes and practice.

Authors:  I G Stiell; I McDowell; R C Nair; H Aeta; G Greenberg; R D McKnight; J Ahuja
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-12-01       Impact factor: 8.262

View more
  9 in total

1.  Diagnostic classification in patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis: physicians' judgement or a decision rule?

Authors:  Geert-Jan Geersing; Kristel J Janssen; Ruud Oudega; Henk van Weert; Henri Stoffers; Arno Hoes; Karel Moons
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Does a decision aid help physicians to detect chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?

Authors:  Berna D L Broekhuizen; Alfred Sachs; Kristel Janssen; Geert-Jan Geersing; Karel Moons; Arno Hoes; Theo Verheij
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Practical implementation of a multiplex PCR for acute respiratory tract infections in children.

Authors:  Paul Gruteke; Afina S Glas; Mirjam Dierdorp; Willem B Vreede; Jan-Willem Pilon; Sylvia M Bruisten
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review.

Authors:  Lucas M Bachmann; Esther Kolb; Michael T Koller; Johann Steurer; Gerben ter Riet
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-02-22

5.  Ottawa versus Bernese: which is better?

Authors:  G N Beceren; S Yolcu; O Tomruk; T Atay; Y B Baykal
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 3.693

6.  Diagnostic Performance of Emergency Physician Gestalt for Predicting Acute Appendicitis in Patients Age 5 to 20 Years.

Authors:  Laura E Simon; Mamata V Kene; E Margaret Warton; Adina S Rauchwerger; David R Vinson; Mary E Reed; Uli K Chettipally; Dustin G Mark; Dana R Sax; D Ian McLachlan; Dale M Cotton; James S Lin; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez; Anupam B Kharbanda; Elyse O Kharbanda; Dustin W Ballard
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 7.  A systematic review of studies comparing diagnostic clinical prediction rules with clinical judgment.

Authors:  Sharon Sanders; Jenny Doust; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa ankle rule to exclude fractures in acute ankle injuries in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yolanda E Gomes; Minh Chau; Helen A Banwell; Ryan S Causby
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 2.562

9.  Clinical value of the Ottawa ankle rules for diagnosis of fractures in acute ankle injuries.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Shi-min Chang; Guang-rong Yu; Zhi-tao Rao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.