Diagnostic Imaging for Distal Extremity Injuries in Direct Access Physical Therapy: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Military physical therapists practicing direct-access routinely utilize diagnostic imaging and numerous published case reports demonstrate the ability of physical therapists to diagnose and appropriately disposition patients with foot/ankle and wrist/hand fractures. However, no larger cohort studies have explored the utilization of diagnostic imaging by physical therapists to detect fractures. Hypothesis/Purpose: To describe the utilization of diagnostic imaging in foot/ankle and wrist/hand injuries by physical therapists in a direct-access sports physical therapy clinic. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: The Agfa Impax Client 6 image viewing software (IMPAX) was searched from 2014 to 2018 for patients with diagnostic imaging ordered for foot/ankle and wrist/hand injuries. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) electronic medical record was independently reviewed by the principal and co-investigator physical therapists. Data extracted were demographics and elements from the patient history and physical examination. Results: In foot/ankle injuries, physical therapists diagnosed a fracture in 16% of the 177 cases and waited for an average of 3.9 days and 1.3 visits before ordering imaging. In wrist/hand injuries, physical therapists diagnosed a fracture in 24% of the 178 cases and waited for an average of 3.7 days and 1.2 visits before ordering imaging. The time to definitive care from the initial physical therapy evaluation was significantly different (p = 0.04) for foot/ankle fractures (0.6 days) compared to wrist/hand fractures (5.0 days). The Ottawa Ankle Rules demonstrated a negative likelihood ratio (-LR) of 0.11 (0.02, 0.72) and a positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 1.99 (1.62, 2.44) for the diagnosis of foot/ankle fracture. Conclusions: Physical therapists utilizing diagnostic imaging in a direct-access sports physical therapy clinic diagnosed fractures in similar proportions for foot/ankle and wrist/hand injuries and quickly dispositioned patients to definitive care for those fractures. The diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle Rules was similar to previously reported values. Level of Evidence: Level 3.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".