MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463787620

Validation of the Sonographic Ottawa Foot and Ankle Rules (SOFAR) Study in a Large Urban Trauma Center.

2016· article· en· W2463787620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Tollefson, James B. Nichols, Stephen Fromang, Richard L. Summers

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleMedicineFoot (prosody)Confidence intervalTrauma centerEmergency departmentObservational studyProspective cohort studySingle CenterSurgeryPhysical therapyRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Differentiating the severity of acute ankle injuries is a common problem in the emergency department (ED). The Ottawa Foot and Ankle Rules (OFAR) were designed to obviate the need for unnecessary x-rays. Although these rules have been determined to be very sensitive, they lack the specificity necessary to make them practically useful for a condition in which a misdiagnosis could result in a significant disability. Our study objective was to determine if the addition of a bedside ultrasound (US) to the evaluation process could be used to significantly reduce the number of negative x-rays in OFAR positive patients. METHODS: A prospective observational studywas conducted in a Level I urban trauma center over a 12 month period in which bedside US was utilized to detect foot and/or ankle fractures in OFAR positive patients of age 18 years and older. All patients in the study received foot and/or ankle x-rays based on OFAR exam. Prior to viewing the x-rays, trained clinicians performed bedside US targeting the medial and lateral malleoli, navicular, and base of the 5th metatarsal and provided a diagnostic impression based on their US findings. The US findings were then compared to the formal x-ray interpretation. RESULTS: A total of fifty patients was enrolled into the study of which twenty-one patients were discovered to have a fracture by US. The sensitivity ofUS in detecting foot and/or ankle fractures was 100% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 78%-100%) and the specificity of OFAR increased from 50% (95% CI 37%-63%) to 100% (95% CI 87%-100%) with the addition of US. The negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI 89%-100%), and the positive predictive value was 100% (95% CI 81%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Among OFAR positive patients, bedside US has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting foot and/or ankle fractures. Further studies should be conducted to determine if utilizing bedside US in addition to OFAR could significantly reduce the number of x-rays and improve the efficiency and costs associated with evaluating these injuries in the ED. Implication for health policy/medical education/research/ practice. Utilizing bedside ultrasonography in addition to Ottawa Foot and Ankle Rules in acutely injured patients could significantly reduce the number of ordered x-rays and length of stay in the emergency department.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207