MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416688903 · doi:10.4103/sjsm.sjsm_21_25

The clinical practice of family medicine physicians in diagnosing and managing lateral ankle sprain

2025· article· en· W4416688903 on OpenAlex
Ahmed Andijani, Turki A. Aldosari, Isamme AlFayyad, Z. Aloraini, Sara Alabdulkarem

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkle sprainClinical PracticeAnkleThematic analysisSports medicineFamily doctors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background: Lateral ankle sprain (LAS) is the most common sports injury seen in family medicine clinics and often occurs during sports activity. Despite its frequency, few studies have examined how family medicine physicians approach LAS. Objective: This study aims to evaluate how family medicine physicians diagnose and manage LAS in their practice. Methods: An electronic cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted from March 2024 to July 2024 in the Riyadh Second Health Cluster, Saudi Arabia. A total of 165 responses were obtained (response rate: 61.1%) through convenience sampling. Data were analyzed in R (version 4.3) using descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and thematic analysis for open-ended responses. Results: More than half of the participants (59.4%, n = 98) did not perform plain radiography for LAS diagnosis, although almost all (96.4%, n = 159) considered the Ottawa ankle rules (OAR). Splinting was the most common immobilization method, used in 73.5% of cases ( n = 86). Overall, 70.9% ( n = 117) immobilized the ankle, 72.7% ( n = 120) recommended rehabilitation, and 69.1% ( n = 114) advised postimmobilization support. A significant difference in immobilization duration was found among residents, senior registrars, and consultants (P = 0.007), whereas consultants recommend more extended periods. Regarding return-to-sport criteria, 17.6% ( n = 29) reported having no specific criteria. Conclusion: This study reflects the current diagnostic and management practices of family medicine physicians, demonstrating high adherence to the OAR, frequent use of immobilization and rehabilitation, and variation in immobilization duration. These findings highlight the need for continuous education and guideline dissemination to promote more standardized care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.342 · 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