Validité diagnostique des critères d’Ottawa pour exclure des fractures de la cheville et du médio-pied chez l’enfant ayant subi un traumatisme : une revue systématique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Traumatology is a frequent reason for medical consultation, particularly in emergency Departments. In this context, the use of X-rays is therefore common and trivialized. Injuries commonly occur among children population, including 10 to 25% fractures, but in paediatrics, ankle fractures represent only 5% of fractures and as far as the foot, the percentage becomes 5 to 8%. Objective: To determine the diagnostic validity of the Ottawa criteria for both ankle and midfoot in children aged between 9 months and 19 years who have suffered trauma. Method: In this systematic literature review, the identification and selection of studies were carried out on the electronic databases Medline and DiTA. The risk of bias of the included articles was calculated using the QUADAS-2 scale. The AMSTAR-2 and GRADE grids have been used to calculate the internal validity and level of evidence of this review. Results: 5 articles were finally included in the qualitative analysis. The analysed results include: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictivity values, as well as positive (RV+) and negative (RV-) likelihood ratios. Discussion: For the ankle test, the sensitivities found were categorized as moderate to high, while the specificities were low. RV- were strong to very strong, unlike RV+ which were weak. Conclusion: The Ottawa ankle criteria can be applied in children to exclude ankle fractures, however we cannot conclude from this review for the midfoot criteria.
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 | 0.056 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".