Ottawa ankle rules accurately assess injuries and reduce reliance on radiographs

Journal of Family Practice

Volumn 53, Issue 10, 2004, Pages 785-788

  Nugent, Paul J ^a,b  

^a Bethesda Family Medicine Residency Program   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANKLE INJURY; ANKLE RADIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; EVALUATION; FAMILY MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL PARAMETERS; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; OTTAWA ANKLE RULE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; SPORTS MEDICINE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ANKLE INJURIES; HUMANS; ONTARIO; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 5344272549     PISSN: 00943509     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Dunlop MG, Beattie TF, White GK, Raab GM, Doull RI. Guidelines for selective radiologic assessment of inversion ankle injuries. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293:603-605.
2. Vargish T, Clarke WR. The ankle injury: indication for selective use of X-rays. Injury 1983; 14:507-512.
3. 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; 24:41-45.
4. Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules. JAMA 1994; 271:827-832.
5. McBride KL. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules. Experience at a community hospital. Can Fam Physician 1997; 43:459-465.
6. Springer, Arciero RA, Tenuta JJ, Taylor DC. A prospective study of modified Ottawa ankle rule in a military population. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28:864-868.
7. Leddy JL, Smolinski RJ; Lawrence J, Snyder JL, Priore RL. Prospective evaluation of the Ottawa ankle rules in a university sports medicine center. With a modification to increase specificity for identifying malleolar fractures. Am J Sports Med 1998; 26:158-165.
8. Garrick JG. Epidemiological perspective. Clin Sports Med 1982; 1:13-18.
9. Smith GF, Madlon-Kay DJ, Hunt V. Clinical inversion injuries in family practice offices. J Fam Pract 1993; 37:345-348.
10. Bachmann LM, Kolb E, Koller MT, Steurer J, ter Riet G. Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fracture of the ankle and midfoot: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326:417.
11. Chande VT. Decision rules for roentgenography of children with acute ankle injuries. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995; 149:255-258.
12. Karpas A, Hennes H, Walsh-Kelly C. Utilization of the Ottawa ankle rules by nurses in a pediatric emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:130-133.
13. Libetta C, Burke D, Brennan P, Yassa J. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in children. J Emerg Med 1999; 16:342-344.
14. Plint AC, Bulloch B, Osmond MH, et al. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in children with ankle injuries. Acad Emerg Med 1999; 6:1005-1009.
15. Clark KD, Tanner S. Evaluation of the Ottawa ankle rules in children. Pedriatr Emerg Care 2003; 19:73-78.
16. Anis AH, Stiell IG, Stewart DG, Laupacis A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Ottawa ankle rules. Ann Emerg Med 1995; 26:422-428.
17. Wilson DE, Noseworthy TW, Rowe BH, Holroyd BR. Evaluation of patient satisfaction and outcomes after assessment for acute ankle injuries. Am J Emerg Med 2002; 20:18-22.