Ankle sprains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SCIENTIFIC REPORT 7 -- 1 -- INTRODUCTION 7 -- 1.1 ANKLE SPRAIN: A FREQUENT PROBLEM 7 -- 1.2 CONTROVERSIES ON THE N EED FOR RADIOGRAPHY 7 -- 1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THIS REPORT 8 -- 1.4 ANATOMY AND CLASSIFICATION OF ANKLE SPRAINS 8 -- 1.4.1 Anatomy of the ankle 8 -- 1.4.2 Ligaments hit in ankle sprains . 8 -- 1.4.3 Classification of ankle sprains .. 9 -- 2 SCOPE 10 -- 3 METHODOLOGY 10 -- 3.1 STAKEHOLDER AND EXPERT INVOLVEMENT 10 -- 3.1.1 Stakeholders 10 -- 3.1.2 Experts 12 -- 3.2 CLINICAL QUESTIONS 12 -- 3.2.1 General questions 12 -- 3.2.2 Specific questions 12 -- 3.3 LITERATURE REVIEW 13 -- 3.3.1 Participants 13 -- 3.3.2 Intervention 13 -- 3.3.3 Comparator 13 -- 3.3.4 Outcome 13 -- 3.3.5 Study design 13 -- 3.3.6 Databases and date limits .14 -- 3.3.7 Search strategy .. 14 -- 3.3.8 Quality appraisal 17 -- 3.3.9 Data extraction 17 -- 3.4 ELABORATION OF RECOMMENDATION 19 -- 3.5 VALIDATION AND UPDATING THE GUIDELINE 20 -- 3.5.1 Validation process 20 -- 3.5.2 Updating of the guideline 20 -- 3.6 FUNDING AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST 20 -- 4 RESULTS FOR DIAGNOSIS 21 -- 4.1 HISTORY TAKING 21 -- 4.2 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION (OTTAWA ANKLE RULES EXCEPTED) 22 -- 4.2.1 Inspection and palpation 22 -- 4.2.2 Functional tests .. 22 -- 4.2.3 Timing of clinical examinations 23 -- 4.3 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: OTTAWA ANKLE RULES (AND DERIVED) 24 -- 4.3.1 Description of the Ottawa ankle rules 24 -- 4.3.2 Validity of the Ottawa Ankle Rules 25 -- 4.3.3 Validity of other decision tools: tuning fork test, Bernese ankle rules, Leiden ankle rules and Utrecht ankle rules 27 -- 4.3.4 Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules .. 29 -- 4.4 IMAGING 31 -- 4.4.1X-ray 31 -- 4.4.2 Ultrasonography 31 -- 4.4.3 Magnetic Resonance Imaging 32 -- 4.4.4 Computer assisted tomography .. 33 -- 4.5 DISCUSSION: DIAGNOSIS OF ANKLE SPRAIN 33 -- 4.6 RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE DIAGNOSIS OF ANKLE SPRAIN 35 -- 5 ALGORITHM FOR DIAGNOSIS 37 -- 6 RESULTS FOR THERAPY 38 -- 6.1 DRUG THERAPY 38 -- 6.1.1 Analgesic and anti-inflammatory oral medication 38 -- 6.1.2 Venotonic drugs 42 -- 6.1.3 Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 42 -- 6.1.4 Alternative topical therapies: Comfrey (Symphytum officinale) root extract ointment (“consoude”). 45 -- 6.2 REST, ICE, COMPRESSION AND ELEVATION 45 -- 6.2.1Rest versus mobilisation 46 -- 6.2.2 Ice versus no ice. 46 -- 6.2.3 Compression versus compression: intermittent pneumatic compression versus elastic bandage. 47 -- 6.2.4 Elevation versus no elevation 47 -- 6.2.5 RICE versus no RICE 47 -- 6.3 ELECTROPHYSICAL THERAPY 47 -- 6.3.1 Ultrasound 47 -- 6.3.2 Laser therapy 48 -- 6.4 ANKLE SUPPORT .. 49 -- 6.4.1 Immobilisation devices 49 -- 6.4.2 Support allowing partial mobilisation 50 -- 6.5 MANUAL THERAPY 51 -- 6.6 EXERCISE THERAPY 51 -- 6.7 OTHER CONSERVATIVE TREATMENTS 52 -- 6.7.1 Hyperbaric oxygen 52 -- 6.7.2 Proteolytic enzyme 52 -- 6.7.3 Hyaluronic acid intra-articular injections 53 -- 6.8 SURGICAL TREATMENT 53 -- 6.9 DISCUSSION: THERAPY FOR ACUTE LATERAL ANKLE SPRAIN 53 -- 6.10 RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE THERAPY OF ANKLE SPRAIN 55 -- 7 ALGORITHM FOR THERAPY 58 -- 8 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDELINE 59 -- 8.1 AT PRACTICE LEVEL: ADAPTATION TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS. 59 -- 8.2 IMPLEMENTATION BY PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES 59 -- 8.3 MONITORING THE GUIDELINE DISSEMINATION 59 -- 8.4 MONITORING THE GUIDELINE IMPLEMENTATION.59 -- REFERENCE LIST 60 -- APPENDICES 68
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.048 |
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".