HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Myers, A Articles by Nelson, T Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Myers, A Articles by Nelson, T Topic Collections ADC Archimedes

Are the Ottawa ankle rules helpful in ruling out the need for x ray examination in children?

Edited by Edited by Bob Phillips

The Children’s Mercy Hospital and Clinics, 2401 Gillham Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, USA; amyers@cmh.edu

Keywords: Ottawa ankle rules; ankle injuries; tibial fractures

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) are a set of guidelines to help the physician as to decision making regarding need for x ray examination after ankle and mid-foot injury. A previous best evidence topic report examined whether these rules could be applied to children.¹ At that time there was insufficient evidence to make a determination. This appraisal updates that topic.

Structured clinical question
In a child with history of ankle injury [patient] are the Ottawa ankle rules [test] reliable in eliminating the need for x ray examination in some patients without the risk of missing fractures [outcome]?

Search strategy and outcome
Secondary sources
Cochrane—two trials that involved children were found in Central.

Primary sources
PubMed—(Clinical Queries) Ottawa ankle rules AND child.

One systematic review was found that included 27 studies, six of which were pertaining to children, two of which were the trials found in Central. Eight total prospective studies were found; six were those included in the systematic . . . [Full text of this article]