Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules

A systematic review with meta-analysis

Paula R. Beckenkamp, Chung Wei Christine Lin, Petra Macaskill, Zoe A. Michaleff, Chris G. Maher, Anne M. Moseley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To review the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules and explore if clinical features and/or methodological quality of the study influence diagnostic accuracy estimates. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Primary diagnostic studies reporting the accuracy of the Rules in people with ankle and/or midfoot injury were retrieved. Diagnostic accuracy estimates, overall and for subgroups (patient's age, profession of the assessor and setting of application), were made. Sensitivity analyses included studies with a low risk of bias and studies where all patients received radiographs. Results 66 studies were included. Ankle and Midfoot Rules presented similar accuracies, which were homogeneous and high for sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios and poor and heterogeneous for specificity and positive likelihood ratios (mean, 95% CI pooled sensitivity of Ankle Rules: 99.4%, 97.9% to 99.8%; specificity: 35.3%, 28.8% to 42.3%). Sensitivity of the Ankle Rules was higher in adults than in children, but the profession of the assessor did not appear to influence accuracy. Specificity was higher for Midfoot than for Ankle Rules. There were not enough studies to allow comparison according to setting of application. Studies with a low risk of bias and where all patients received radiographs provided lower accuracy estimates. Specificity heterogeneity was not explained by assessor training, use of imaging in all patients and low risk of bias. Conclusions Study features and the methodological quality influence estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)504-510
Number of pages7
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume51
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ankle
Meta-Analysis
Information Storage and Retrieval
MEDLINE
Libraries
Wounds and Injuries

Cite this

Beckenkamp, Paula R. ; Lin, Chung Wei Christine ; Macaskill, Petra ; Michaleff, Zoe A. ; Maher, Chris G. ; Moseley, Anne M. / Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules : A systematic review with meta-analysis. In: British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 51, No. 6. pp. 504-510.
@article{7528d784cfb04049851b3740eacca3ff,
title = "Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules: A systematic review with meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objective To review the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules and explore if clinical features and/or methodological quality of the study influence diagnostic accuracy estimates. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Primary diagnostic studies reporting the accuracy of the Rules in people with ankle and/or midfoot injury were retrieved. Diagnostic accuracy estimates, overall and for subgroups (patient's age, profession of the assessor and setting of application), were made. Sensitivity analyses included studies with a low risk of bias and studies where all patients received radiographs. Results 66 studies were included. Ankle and Midfoot Rules presented similar accuracies, which were homogeneous and high for sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios and poor and heterogeneous for specificity and positive likelihood ratios (mean, 95{\%} CI pooled sensitivity of Ankle Rules: 99.4{\%}, 97.9{\%} to 99.8{\%}; specificity: 35.3{\%}, 28.8{\%} to 42.3{\%}). Sensitivity of the Ankle Rules was higher in adults than in children, but the profession of the assessor did not appear to influence accuracy. Specificity was higher for Midfoot than for Ankle Rules. There were not enough studies to allow comparison according to setting of application. Studies with a low risk of bias and where all patients received radiographs provided lower accuracy estimates. Specificity heterogeneity was not explained by assessor training, use of imaging in all patients and low risk of bias. Conclusions Study features and the methodological quality influence estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules.",
author = "Beckenkamp, {Paula R.} and Lin, {Chung Wei Christine} and Petra Macaskill and Michaleff, {Zoe A.} and Maher, {Chris G.} and Moseley, {Anne M.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bjsports-2016-096858",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "504--510",
journal = "British Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0306-3674",
publisher = "B M J PUBLISHING GROUP",
number = "6",

}

Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules : A systematic review with meta-analysis. / Beckenkamp, Paula R.; Lin, Chung Wei Christine; Macaskill, Petra; Michaleff, Zoe A.; Maher, Chris G.; Moseley, Anne M.

In: British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 6, 01.01.2017, p. 504-510.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules

T2 - A systematic review with meta-analysis

AU - Beckenkamp, Paula R.

AU - Lin, Chung Wei Christine

AU - Macaskill, Petra

AU - Michaleff, Zoe A.

AU - Maher, Chris G.

AU - Moseley, Anne M.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Objective To review the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules and explore if clinical features and/or methodological quality of the study influence diagnostic accuracy estimates. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Primary diagnostic studies reporting the accuracy of the Rules in people with ankle and/or midfoot injury were retrieved. Diagnostic accuracy estimates, overall and for subgroups (patient's age, profession of the assessor and setting of application), were made. Sensitivity analyses included studies with a low risk of bias and studies where all patients received radiographs. Results 66 studies were included. Ankle and Midfoot Rules presented similar accuracies, which were homogeneous and high for sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios and poor and heterogeneous for specificity and positive likelihood ratios (mean, 95% CI pooled sensitivity of Ankle Rules: 99.4%, 97.9% to 99.8%; specificity: 35.3%, 28.8% to 42.3%). Sensitivity of the Ankle Rules was higher in adults than in children, but the profession of the assessor did not appear to influence accuracy. Specificity was higher for Midfoot than for Ankle Rules. There were not enough studies to allow comparison according to setting of application. Studies with a low risk of bias and where all patients received radiographs provided lower accuracy estimates. Specificity heterogeneity was not explained by assessor training, use of imaging in all patients and low risk of bias. Conclusions Study features and the methodological quality influence estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules.

AB - Objective To review the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules and explore if clinical features and/or methodological quality of the study influence diagnostic accuracy estimates. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Primary diagnostic studies reporting the accuracy of the Rules in people with ankle and/or midfoot injury were retrieved. Diagnostic accuracy estimates, overall and for subgroups (patient's age, profession of the assessor and setting of application), were made. Sensitivity analyses included studies with a low risk of bias and studies where all patients received radiographs. Results 66 studies were included. Ankle and Midfoot Rules presented similar accuracies, which were homogeneous and high for sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios and poor and heterogeneous for specificity and positive likelihood ratios (mean, 95% CI pooled sensitivity of Ankle Rules: 99.4%, 97.9% to 99.8%; specificity: 35.3%, 28.8% to 42.3%). Sensitivity of the Ankle Rules was higher in adults than in children, but the profession of the assessor did not appear to influence accuracy. Specificity was higher for Midfoot than for Ankle Rules. There were not enough studies to allow comparison according to setting of application. Studies with a low risk of bias and where all patients received radiographs provided lower accuracy estimates. Specificity heterogeneity was not explained by assessor training, use of imaging in all patients and low risk of bias. Conclusions Study features and the methodological quality influence estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006010748&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096858

DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096858

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 504

EP - 510

JO - British Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0306-3674

IS - 6

ER -