The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To summarise the evidence on accuracy of the Ottawa ankle rules, a decision aid for excluding fractures of the ankle and mid-foot. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Electronic databases, reference lists of included studies, and experts. Review methods: Data were extracted on the study population, the type of Ottawa ankle rules used, and methods. Sensitivities, but not specificities, were pooled using the bootstrap after inspection of the receiver operating characteristics plot. Negative likelihood ratios were pooled for several subgroups, correcting for four main methodological threats to validity. Results: 32 studies met the inclusion criteria and 27 studies reporting on 15 581 patients were used for meta-analysis. The pooled negative likelihood ratios for the ankle and mid-foot were 0.08 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.18) and 0.08 (0.03 to 0.20), respectively. The pooled negative likelihood ratio for both regions in children was 0.07 (0.03 to 0.18). Applying these ratios to a 15% prevalence of fracture gave a less than 1.4% probability of actual fracture in these subgroups. Conclusion: Evidence supports the Ottawa ankle rules as an accurate instrument for excluding fractures of the ankle and mid-foot. The instrument has a sensitivity of almost 100% and a modest specificity, and its use should reduce the number of unnecessary radiographs by 30-40%. What is already known on this topic: Although most patients with ankle sprains who present to emergency departments undergo radiography, less than 15% have a fracture The Ottawa ankle rules is a clinical decision aid designed to avoid unnecessary radiography What this paper adds: The Ottawa ankle rules is highly accurate at excluding ankle fractures after sprain injury
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Cited by
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Ruling a diagnosis in or out with “SpPIn” and “SnNOut”: a note of caution
Pewsner, D., Battaglia, M., Minder, C., Marx, A., Bucher, H. C., & Egger, M. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7459.209 · Cited by 196
Metadata
- Authors
- Bachmann, L. M., Kolb, E., Koller, M. T., Steurer, J., & Riet, G. T.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-02-22
- Volume
- 326
- Issue
- 7386
- Pages
- 417
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2014481552
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.326.7386.417
- The paper
- Bachmann, L. M., Kolb, E., Koller, M. T., Steurer, J., & Riet, G. T. (2003). Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7386.417
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.