Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Decision Rules to Exclude Fractures in Acute Ankle Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

4Citations
Citations of this article
64Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

You may have access to this PDF.

Abstract

Background Ankle decision rules are developed to expedite patient care and reduce the number of radiographs of the ankle and foot. Currently, only three systematic reviews have been conducted on the accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Foot Rules (OAFR) in adults and children. However, no systematic review has been performed to determine the most accurate ankle decision rule. Objectives The purpose of this study is to examine which clinical decision rules are the most accurate for excluding ankle fracture after acute ankle trauma. Methods A systematic search was conducted in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE. The sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of the included studies were calculated. A meta-analysis was conducted if the accuracy of a decision rule was available from at least three different experimental studies. Results Eighteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. These included six ankle decision rules, specifically, the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Tuning Fork Test, Low Risk Ankle Rule, Malleolar and Midfoot Zone Algorithms, and the Bernese Ankle Rules. Meta-analysis of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), OAFR, Bernese Ankle Rules, and the Malleolar Zone Algorithm resulted in a negative likelihood ratio of 0.12, 0.14, 0.39, and 0.23, respectively. Conclusion The OAR and OAFR are the most accurate decision rules for excluding fractures in the event of an acute ankle injury.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barelds, I., Krijnen, W. P., van de Leur, J. P., van der Schans, C. P., & Goddard, R. J. (2017). Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Decision Rules to Exclude Fractures in Acute Ankle Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 53(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.04.035

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free