Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: Systematic review

British Medical Journal

Volumn 326, Issue 7386, 2003, Pages 417-419

  Bachmann, Lucas M ^a   Kolb, Esther ^a   Koller, Michael T ^a   Steurer, Johann ^a   Ter Riet, Gerben ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ANKLE FRACTURE; ARTICLE; CANADA; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DATA BASE; DECISION MAKING; FOOT; FOOT RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; REVIEW;

ANKLE INJURIES; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FOOT INJURIES; FRACTURES, BONE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0037460731     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Smith GF, Madlon-Kay DJ, Hunt V. Clinical evaluation of ankle inversion injuries in family practice offices. J Fam Pract 1993;37:345-8.
2. Brand DA, Frazier WH, Kohlhepp WC, Shea KM, Hoefer AM, Ecker MD, et al. A protocol for selecting patients with injured extremities who need x-rays. N Engl J Med 1982;306:333-9.
3. Brooks SC, Potter BT, Rainey JB. Inversion injuries of the ankle: clinical assessment and radiographic review. BMJ 1981;282:607-8.
4. Dunlop MG, Beattie TF, White GK, Raab GM, Doull RI. Guidelines for selective radiological assessment of inversion ankle injuries. BMJ 1986;293:603-5.
5. Lloyd S. Selective radiographic assessment of acute ankle injuries in the emergency department: barriers to implementation. CMAJ 1986;135:973-4.
6. Sujitkumar P, Hadfield JM, Yates DW. Sprain or fracture? An analysis of 2000 ankle injuries. Arch Emerg Med 1986;3:101-6.
7. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Worthington JR. A study to develop clinical decision roles for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:384-90.
8. Ottawa ankle rules for ankle injury radiography www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/OHDEC/ankle_rule/ flash_ankle_rule.htm (accessed 20 Apr 2002).
9. Cochrane Methods Group on systematic review of screening and diagnostic tests: recommended methods, last updated on 9 Feb, 1998. www.cochrane.org/cochrane/sadtdoc1.htm (accessed 22 Aug 2002).
10. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:667-76.
11. Khan KS, ter Riet G, Popay J, Nixon J, Kleijnen J. Study quality assessment (phase 5): conducting the review (stage II). In: CRD report No 4. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. 2001;1-20. Last updated 2001 www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm (accessed 2 May 2002).
12. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061-6.
13. McAlister FA, Straus SE, Sackett DL. Why we need large, simple studies of the clinical examination: the problem and a proposed solution. CARE-COAD1 group. Clinical Assessment of the Reliability of the Examination-Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease Group. Lancet 1999;354:1721-4.
14. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274:645-51.
15. Pigman EC, Klug RK, Sanford S, Jolly BT. Evaluation of the Ottawa clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle and midfoot injuries in the emergency department an independent site assessment Ann Emerg Med 1994;24:41-5.
16. Springer BA, Arciero RA, Tenuta JJ, Taylor DC. A prospective study of modified Ottawa ankle rules in a military population. Am J Sports Med 2000;28:864-8.
17. Cameron C, Naylor CD. No impact from active dissemination of the Ottawa ankle rules: further evidence of the need for local implementation of practice guidelines. CMAJ 1999;160:1165-8.