MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Challenges of Implementing and Documenting Ottawa Ankle Rules in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study

2024· article· en· W4390817574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emmalee M. Kugler, Michael Gillman, Olivia Toner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cooper Rowan Medical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleEmergency departmentConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyRadiographyPhysical therapyProspective cohort studyPredictive valueSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Acute ankle sprains account for nearly 2% of visits to the pediatric emergency department (PED). The Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) were developed as a safe and effective clinical decision-making tool for detecting the need for radiographs in adults with acute ankle pain. OAR state radiographs are required with at least one of the following: 1. Inability to bear weight immediately following the injury and for four steps in the ED 2. Bony tenderness at the posterior edge of the lateral or medial malleolus OBJECTIVE Few prospective cohort studies have attempted to assess OAR pediatric populations. This study investigates the validity and documentation of OAR within a single academic institution’s PED. METHODS This retrospective chart review included previously healthy patients aged 2-19 years who presented to the PED with a traumatic ankle injury between 2019 and 2021. Exclusion criteria were met with documented parental insistence for imaging studies. We compared calculated OAR predictive values to those in literature using Chi-squared tests and WINPEPI. RESULTS A total of 295 subjects were included. When only considering clinically significant fractures in the data analysis, 247 patients received X-rays and 42 clinically significant fractures were found. OAR were 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval 93.1–100.0), 12.2% specific (95% CI 8.2–17.2), with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 18.9% (95% CI 16.6–26.5), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (95% CI 88.7–100.0). When comparing this study’s findings to those with similar design protocol, specificity was lower (p<0.05) and there was no significant difference in sensitivity, PPV, or NPV. CONCLUSION Implementing the highly sensitive OAR yielded zero missed fractures. Their poor specificity results in unnecessary radiation exposure, which also increases expense and wait time. Excess imaging may be attributed to ambiguous OAR criteria, their dependence on pediatric cooperation, and parental expectations for imaging studies.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cooper Rowan Medical JournalSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207