Skip to main content
PMC home page
Canadian Family Physician logoLink to Canadian Family Physician
. 1997 Mar;43:459–465.

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

K L McBride 1
PMCID: PMC2255300  PMID: 9116517

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.

Full text

PDF
463

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anis A. H., Stiell I. G., Stewart D. G., Laupacis A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Ottawa Ankle Rules. Ann Emerg Med. 1995 Oct;26(4):422–428. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(95)70108-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brand D. A., Frazier W. H., Kohlhepp W. C., Shea K. M., Hoefer A. M., Ecker M. D., Kornguth P. J., Pais M. J., Light T. R. A protocol for selecting patients with injured extremities who need x-rays. N Engl J Med. 1982 Feb 11;306(6):333–339. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198202113060604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brooks S. C., Potter B. T., Rainey J. B. Inversion injuries of the ankle: clinical assessment and radiographic review. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 Feb 21;282(6264):607–608. doi: 10.1136/bmj.282.6264.607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chande V. T. Decision rules for roentgenography of children with acute ankle injuries. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995 Mar;149(3):255–258. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1995.02170150035005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Charlson M. E., Ales K. L., Simon R., MacKenzie C. R. Why predictive indexes perform less well in validation studies. Is it magic or methods? Arch Intern Med. 1987 Dec;147(12):2155–2161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cockshott W. P., Jenkin J. K., Pui M. Limiting the use of routine radiography for acute ankle injuries. Can Med Assoc J. 1983 Jul 15;129(2):129–131. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Diehr P., Highley R., Dehkordi F., Wood R., Krueger L., Teitz C., Hermanson B. Prediction of fracture in patients with acute musculoskeletal ankle trauma. Med Decis Making. 1988 Jan-Mar;8(1):40–47. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8800800106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dunlop M. G., Beattie T. F., White G. K., Raab G. M., Doull R. I. Guidelines for selective radiological assessment of inversion ankle injuries. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Sep 6;293(6547):603–605. doi: 10.1136/bmj.293.6547.603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gratton M. C., Salomone J. A., 3rd, Watson W. A. Clinically significant radiograph misinterpretations at an emergency medicine residency program. Ann Emerg Med. 1990 May;19(5):497–502. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82175-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kelly A. M., Richards D., Kerr L., Grant J., O'Donovan P., Basire K., Graham R. Failed validation of a clinical decision rule for the use of radiography in acute ankle injury. N Z Med J. 1994 Jul 27;107(982):294–295. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lloyd S. Acute ankle injuries: clinical/radiologic assessment in diagnosis. Can Fam Physician. 1988 Oct;34:2261–2265. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lucchesi G. M., Jackson R. E., Peacock W. F., Cerasani C., Swor R. A. Sensitivity of the Ottawa rules. Ann Emerg Med. 1995 Jul;26(1):1–5. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(95)70229-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. McConnochie K. M., Roghmann K. J., Pasternack J., Monroe D. J., Monaco L. P. Prediction rules for selective radiographic assessment of extremity injuries in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 1990 Jul;86(1):45–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pigman E. C., Klug R. K., Sanford S., Jolly B. T. 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 Jul;24(1):41–45. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(94)70160-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rivara F. P., Parish R. A., Mueller B. A. Extremity injuries in children: predictive value of clinical findings. Pediatrics. 1986 Nov;78(5):803–807. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Smith G. F., Madlon-Kay D. J., Hunt V. Clinical evaluation of ankle inversion injuries in family practice offices. J Fam Pract. 1993 Oct;37(4):345–348. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Stiell I. G., Greenberg G. H., McKnight R. D., Nair R. C., McDowell I., Reardon M., Stewart J. P., Maloney J. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA. 1993 Mar 3;269(9):1127–1132. doi: 10.1001/jama.269.9.1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Stiell I. G., Greenberg G. H., McKnight R. D., Nair R. C., McDowell I., Worthington J. R. A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 1992 Apr;21(4):384–390. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82656-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Stiell I. G., McDowell I., Nair R. C., Aeta H., Greenberg G., McKnight R. D., Ahuja J. Use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: physicians' attitudes and practice. CMAJ. 1992 Dec 1;147(11):1671–1678. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Stiell I. G., McKnight R. D., Greenberg G. H., McDowell I., Nair R. C., Wells G. A., Johns C., Worthington J. R. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. JAMA. 1994 Mar 16;271(11):827–832. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Stiell I., Wells G., Laupacis A., Brison R., Verbeek R., Vandemheen K., Naylor C. D. Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Multicentre Ankle Rule Study Group. BMJ. 1995 Sep 2;311(7005):594–597. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7005.594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sujitkumar P., Hadfield J. M., Yates D. W. Sprain or fracture? An analysis of 2000 ankle injuries. Arch Emerg Med. 1986 Jun;3(2):101–106. doi: 10.1136/emj.3.2.101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Vargish T., Clarke W. R., Young R. A., Jensen A. The ankle injury--indications for the selective use of X-rays. Injury. 1983 May;14(6):507–512. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(83)90053-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Wasson J. H., Sox H. C., Neff R. K., Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med. 1985 Sep 26;313(13):793–799. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198509263131306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Family Physician are provided here courtesy of College of Family Physicians of Canada

RESOURCES