Literature DB >> 9116517

Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules. Experience at a community hospital.

K L McBride1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the validity of a set of defined and tested rules for decisions on use of radiography for acute ankle injuries.
DESIGN: Prospective survey.
SETTING: Community hospital emergency department managing 42000 visits annually. PARTICIPANTS: A non-consecutive sample of 318 adults and children presenting during 1 year was evaluated by 25 family physicians in part-time emergency practice.
INTERVENTIONS: Participating physicians interpreted the Ottawa ankle rules for all enrolled patients and ordered radiographs in 96% of cases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity of the Ottawa ankle rules to predict whether radiography is required for acute ankle injuries.
RESULTS: Of the 318 cases, 22 incomplete records were excluded, leaving 259 records of adults and 37 records of patients younger than 16 accepted for analysis. Of 34 adult patients with identified fractures, only one was predicted by the rules not to require radiographs. Sensitivity of the rules was 0.971 (confidence interval [CI] 0.914 to 1.00), specificity was 0.302 (CI 0.242 to 0.362), positive predictive value was 0.174 (CI 0.120 to 0.228), and negative predictive value was 0.986 (CI 0.971 to 1.00). Radiography could have been reduced by 26.3% had the rules been applied. Of the 37 children, seven had fractures. All were properly identified by the rules. Radiography in this group could have been reduced by 22%.
CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the Ottawa ankle rules and supports their use. Further research on how the rules apply to children is required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9116517      PMCID: PMC2255300     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  24 in total

1.  Guidelines for selective radiological assessment of inversion ankle injuries.

Authors:  M G Dunlop; T F Beattie; G K White; G M Raab; R I Doull
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-09-06

2.  Limiting the use of routine radiography for acute ankle injuries.

Authors:  W P Cockshott; J K Jenkin; M Pui
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1983-07-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Decision rules for roentgenography of children with acute ankle injuries.

Authors:  V T Chande
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  1995-03

7.  Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Multicentre Ankle Rule Study Group.

Authors:  I Stiell; G Wells; A Laupacis; R Brison; R Verbeek; K Vandemheen; C D Naylor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-02

8.  A protocol for selecting patients with injured extremities who need x-rays.

Authors:  D A Brand; W H Frazier; W C Kohlhepp; K M Shea; A M Hoefer; M D Ecker; P J Kornguth; M J Pais; T R Light
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1982-02-11       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  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

10.  The ankle injury--indications for the selective use of X-rays.

Authors:  T Vargish; W R Clarke; R A Young; A Jensen
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 2.586

View more
  5 in total

1.  [The Ottawa ankle guidelines: analysis of their validity as clinical decision guidelines in the indication of X-rays for ankle and/or middle-foot injuries].

Authors:  P Garcés; S Gurucharri; C Ibiricu; M Izuel; J Mozo; P Buil; J Díez
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2001-06-30       Impact factor: 1.137

2.  Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in children.

Authors:  C Libetta; D Burke; P Brennan; J Yassa
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1999-09

3.  No impact from active dissemination of the Ottawa Ankle Rules: further evidence of the need for local implementation of practice guidelines.

Authors:  C Cameron; C D Naylor
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-04-20       Impact factor: 8.262

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.  Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in Iran: a prospective survey.

Authors:  Shahram Yazdani; Hesam Jahandideh; Hossein Ghofrani
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2006-02-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.