Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics and design

From: Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa ankle rule to exclude fractures in acute ankle injuries in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Year Region Study design Sample size Age (mean ± STDEV) Sampling method Reference standard (Radiography and/or follow up) Radiograph interpretation (radiologist or ED physician) Follow-up interpretation
Auley 1998 [1] 1998 France Prospective validation survey 416 34 [range: 18–90] Consecutive Radiography ED physician at time of visit + blinded radiologist (for OAR performance) No follow up
Beceren 2013 [3] 2013 Turkey Randomized prospective 962 30.3 ± 13.2 Consecutive Radiography Orthopaedic surgery resident N/R
Broomhead 2003 [5] 2003 Australia Prospective validation study 333 34.7 [range: 18.1–84.8] Consecutive Radiography Radiologist No follow up
Can 2008 [6] 2008 Zurich Prospective cohort study 251 51 ± 21 (fracture present)
38 ± 17 (fracture absent)
Consecutive Radiography Radiologist and emergency physicians N/R
Cheng 2016 [7] 2016 Australia Retrospective review 404 38.5 Consecutive Radiography N/R N/R
Daş 2016 [8] 2016 Turkey Retrospective case–control analysis 405 37.5 Consecutive Radiography Radiologist and Orthopaedic surgeon (blinded to OAR status) No follow up
Glas 2002 [12] 2002 Amsterdam Prospective comparative study 647 35 ± 14 Consecutive Radiography Radiologist and trauma surgeon N/R
Gomes 2020 [13] 2000 Australia Retrospective review 262 38 ± 13.8 Unclear Radiography Radiologist N/R
Lucchesi 1995 [16] 1995 Michigan Prospective validation study 484 38 [range: 18–81] Convenience Radiography Radiologist No follow up
Papacostas 2001 [21] 2001 Greece Prospective survey 79 29 ± 9.6 Consecutive Radiography Radiologist No follow up
Rosin 1999 [22] 1999 South Korea Retrospective 67 24.9 [range: 19–41] Consecutive Radiography N/R N/R
Santelli 2008 [24] 2008 France Prospective 248 31.8 ± 15.9 Consecutive Radiography Radiologist N/R
Salt 1997 [23] 1997 UK Prospective 324 Above 18 Consecutive Radiography N/R No follow-up
Stiell 1994 [25] 1994 Canada Non-randomized controlled trial 498 37 ± 16 Consecutive Radiography Radiologist Telephoned at 10 days or asked to return for re-assessment
Verma 1997 [28] 1997 US Retrospective 2500 Above 18 Consecutive Radiography N/R Medical record review
Verma 1997 [28] 1997 US Prospective 759 Above 18 Consecutive Radiography N/R Telephone or medical record review
Wang 2013 [23] 2013 China Prospective 183 36.6 [range:18–70] Consecutive Radiography ED physician 3D CT
  1. ED Emergency department, N/R Not recorded, UK United Kingdom, US United States of America, 3D Three-dimensional, CT Computed tomography