Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in Australia

Emergency Medicine

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 126-132

  Broomhead, Alan ^a,b   Stuart, Peter ^a  

^a LYELL MCEWIN HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b NONE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Ankle; Emergency department; Foot; Injury; Radiography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANKLE FRACTURE; ANKLE INJURY; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; FEMALE; FOOT INJURY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OTTAWA ANKLE RULES; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TEACHING HOSPITAL; URBAN AREA; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANKLE INJURIES; AUSTRALIA; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EMERGENCY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; EMERGENCY TREATMENT; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FRACTURES, BONE; HOSPITALS, TEACHING; HOSPITALS, URBAN; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; MIDDLE AGED; PALPATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 0037695124     PISSN: 10356851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00430.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD et al. A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann. Emerg. Med. 1992; 21: 384-90.
2. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD et al. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 1993; 269: 1127-32.
3. Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH et al. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. JAMA 1994; 271: 827-32.
4. Stiell I, Wells G, Laupacis A et al. A multicentre trial to introduce clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. BMJ 1995; 311: 594-7.
5. Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin, JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann. Intern. Med. 1999; 130: 515-24.
6. Pigman EC, Klug RK, Sanford S et al. 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.
7. Solomito AL, Singal BM, Radack M et al. Ankle radiography in the emergency department: A prospective validation of Ottawa ankle rules (Abstract). Acad. Emerg. Med. 1994; 1: A64.
8. Auleley G-R, Kerboull L, Durieux P et al. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in France: A study in the surgical emergency department of a teaching hospital. Ann. Emerg. Med. 1998; 32:14-8.
9. Pijnenberg ACM, Glas AS, de Roos MAJ et al. Radiography in acute ankle injuries: The Ottawa Ankle Rules versus local diagnostic decision rules. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2002; 39: 599-604.
10. Kerr L, Kelly AM, Grant J et al. Failed validation of a clinical decision rule for the use of radiography in acute ankle injury. NZ Med. J. 1994; 107: 294-5.
11. Lucchesi GM, Jackson RE, Peacock WF et al. Sensitivity of the Ottawa rules. Ann. Emerg. Med. 1995; 26: 1-5.
12. Perry S, Raby N, Grant PT. Prospective survey to verify the Ottawa ankle rules. J. Accid. Emerg. Med. 1999; 16: 258-60.
13. Tay S-Y, Thoo F-L, Sitoh Y-Y et al. The Ottawa Ankle Rules in Asia: Validating a clinical decision rule for requesting X-rays in twisting ankle and foot injuries. J. Emerg. Med. 1999; 17: 945-7.
14. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD et al. Ottawa ankle rules for radiography of acute injuries. NZ Med. J. 1995; 108: 111.
15. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD et al. The 'real' Ottawa ankle rules. Ann. Emerg. Med. 1996; 27: 103-4.
16. Kelly A-M. Ottawa ankle rules for radiography of acute injuries. NZ Med. J. 1995; 108: 111.