Evidence based clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute ankle injuries according to: PRISMA systematic review and quality appraisal with AGREE II.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Acute ankle injuries are a common injury seen in emergency rooms resulting in huge social impact and sometimes devastating consequences. Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) related to ankle injuries have been developed by various organizations, but there is a lack of a critical appraisal of them. The purpose of this systematic review is to find and critically appraise evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for EB-CPGs related to acute ankle injuries in adults. Method Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, WHO databases, and 98 worldwide orthopedic association websites were searched until early 2023. Two authors individually employed the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and each EB-CPG was subject to an independent critical appraisal of its content, by four authors, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument, and AGREE II scores for each domain were calculated. Results Five evidence-based clinical practice guidelines were included in this review. Mean scores for all six domains were as follows: Scope and Purpose (87.8%), Stakeholder Involvement (69.2%), Rigour of Development (72.5%), Clarity of Presentation (86.9%), Applicability (45.6%), and Editorial Independence (53.3%). Conclusion The overall quality of the existing ankle injuries EB-CPGs is not strong and three of them are out of date. Useful guidance related to Ottawa rules, manual therapy, cryotherapy, functional supports, early ambulation, and rehabilitation have been mentioned. monitoring and/or auditing criteria, the view and preferences of the target population item, and editorial independence are challenge areas and future guidelines should focus on improvements in these domains. Systematic Review: Systematic review.
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 | 0.232 | 0.421 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".