• CMAJ · Mar 2002

    Comparative Study

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

    • Afina S Glas, Bas A C M Pijnenburg, Jeroen G Lijmer, Kjell Bogaard, Roos Marnix A J de, Johannes N Keeman, Rudolf M J M Butzelaar, and Patrick M M Bossuyt.
    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.s.glas@amc.uva.nl
    • CMAJ. 2002 Mar 19;166(6):727-33.

    BackgroundAnkle 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.MethodsConsecutive 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.ResultsOf 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.InterpretationPhysicians' 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.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.