MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pediatric Emergency Physician Opinions on Ankle Radiograph Clinical Decision Rules

2010· article· en· W2150725186 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathy Boutis, Erika Constantine, Suzanne Schuh, Martin Pecaric, Derek Stephens, Unni Narayanan

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency physicianMedical emergencyChest radiographClinical decision makingAnkleEmergency departmentFamily medicineRadiographyRadiologySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The Low Risk Ankle Rule (LRAR) is a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) about the indications for ankle radiographs in children with acute blunt ankle trauma. Although application of the LRAR has the potential to safely reduce the rate of ankle radiography by 60%, current x-ray rates in most emergency departments (EDs) in the United States and Canada remain unnecessarily high (85%-100%). To evaluate this gap between knowledge and practice, physicians who treat pediatric ankle injuries in EDs were surveyed to determine physician awareness and use of the LRAR, acceptability of the LRAR as measured by the Ottawa Acceptability for Decision Rules Scale (OADRS), and perceived barriers to the use of a validated pediatric ankle x-ray rule. METHODS: An on-line survey of members of two national pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physician associations in the United States and Canada was conducted using a modified Dillman technique. RESULTS: Response rates were 75.6% (149/197) in Canada and 45.7% (352/770) in the United States, yielding an aggregate rate of 51.8%. Only 119 of 478 respondents (24.9%) had heard of the LRAR, and 53 of 432 (12.3%) were sufficiently familiar with the LRAR to apply it. The LRAR scored a mean (+/- standard deviation [SD]) OADRS score of 4.28 out of 6 (+/-0.67), comparable to published OADRS scores for two well-known CDRs used in adults. Of the respondents, 434 of 471 (92.1%) at least "slightly agreed" that ankle x-ray CDRs would be useful in their practice, with no significant differences between the two sides of the border (p = 0.28). Ankle x-ray rules were felt to save time by 342 (72.6%) of the participants, and the pediatric ankle exam was considered easy enough to apply a CDR by 306 (65.0%). The most common barriers reported for use of any ankle x-ray rule included perceived reduction in family satisfaction without imaging in 380 (80.7%), nurse-initiated x-ray protocols not based on ankle x-ray rules in 285 (60.5%), concerns about missing a significant fracture in 248 (52.7%), and a preference for own clinical judgment in 246 (52.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the LRAR had a high acceptability score among respondents in this survey, this validated CDR is not widely known and is even less frequently applied by PEM physicians in the United States and Canada. Barriers were identified that will guide efforts to improve the knowledge translation of the LRAR into pediatric EDs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207