Validation of the Ottawa knee rule in adults: A single centre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This clinical audit aimed to evaluate performance of the Ottawa Knee Rule (OKR) and degree of compliance by emergency referrers for acute knee injuries in adults. METHODS: Knee radiography requests were analysed retrospectively for eligibility. Data were extracted from eligible requests under headings describing the OKR criteria, patient history, diagnosis and referrer profession. Sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio and positive likelihood ratio were calculated with 95% CI for the entire sample and each profession (consultant doctors, resident medical officers [RMO], physiotherapists and triage nurses) individually. The frequency of each OKR criterion and correlation with fracture, referrer compliance to the rule and the relative reduction in radiography were also calculated. RESULTS: Of 713 patients identified, 149 were enrolled by the eligibility criteria. The overall sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio and positive likelihood ratio of the OKR for knee fracture were 71% (95%CI, 49-87%), 46% (95%CI, 37-55%), 0.64 (95%CI, 0.33-1.22) and 1.3 (95%CI, 0.96-1.76), respectively. Physiotherapists and triage nurses demonstrated better rule performance than consultant doctors and RMOs, with a sensitivity of 100% and negative likelihood ratio of 0.0. Physiotherapists were most compliant at 73% (19/26). Only 85 requests were OKR positive and, when abiding by the rule, this would have reduced radiography by 43% (64/149). CONCLUSIONS: In this first Australian study, moderate OKR performance and variable compliance by emergency referrers were observed. This led to unnecessary irradiation of patients without a fracture. The findings suggest emergency referrers could benefit from education on applying and documenting the OKR on radiography requests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".