Management and treatment of ankle sprain according to clinical practice guidelines: A PRISMA systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lateral sprain of the ankle is a very frequent injury in the population in general, appearing in the emergency services frequently. The general objective was to review the current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on management and treatment of ankle sprains, assess their quality, analyze the levels of evidence and summarize the grades of recommendation. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature in relevant databases with the search terms "ankle," "sprain," "practice guideline," and "guideline" was carried out. There were included those guidelines that had the system of grades of recommendation and level of evidence concerning to management and treatment of ankle sprain. The quality of the guides was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. RESULTS: Seven clinical practice guides were included in this review. The AGREE II scores ranged from 42% to 100%, with only six CPGs explicitly declaring the use of a systematic methodology. Seventeen recommendations were extracted and summarized. DISCUSSION: Six of the recommendations analyzed present enough evidence to be applied in clinical practice and are highly recommended for ankle sprain management: Ottawa rules, manual therapy, cryotherapy, functional supports, early ambulation, short term NSAIDs and rehabilitation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".