RT Book, Section
A1 McGinn, Thomas
A1 Wyer, Peter
A1 McCullagh, Lauren
A1 Wisnivesky, Juan
A1 Devereaux, PJ
A1 Stiell, Ian
A1 Richardson, W. Scott
A1 Agoritsas, Thomas
A1 Guyatt, Gordon
A2 Guyatt, Gordon
A2 Rennie, Drummond
A2 Meade, Maureen O.
A2 Cook, Deborah J.
SR Print(0)
ID 1183877475
T1 Clinical Prediction Rules
T2 Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
YR 2015
FD 2015
PB McGraw-Hill Education
PP New York, NY
SN 978-0-07-179071-0
LK jamaevidence.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?aid=1183877475
RD 2023/03/30
AB CLINICAL  SCENARIOYou  are  the  medical  director  of  a  busy  inner-city  emergency  department.  Faced  with  a  limited  budget  and  pressure  to  improve  efficiency,  you  have  conducted  an  audit  of  radiologic  procedures  ordered  for  minor  trauma  and  have  found  that  the  rate  of  radiographs  ordered  for  ankle  and  knee  trauma  is  high.  You  are  aware  of  the  Ottawa  Ankle  Rules,  which  help  identify  patients  for  whom  it  is  safe  to  omit  ankle  radiographs  without  adverse  consequences  (Figure  19.4-1).1,2  You  are  aware  that  only  a  small  number  of  your  institution's  faculty  and  residents  currently  use  the  Ottawa  Ankle  Rules  in  the  emergency  department.You  are  interested  in  knowing  the  accuracy  of  the  Ottawa  Ankle  Rules,  whether  they  are  applicable  to  the  population  of  patients  in  your  hospital,  and  whether  you  should  implement  them  in  your  own  practice.  Furthermore,  you  wonder  whether  implementing  these  rules  can  change  clinical  behavior  and  reduce  costs  without  compromising  quality  of  care.  You  decide  to  consult  the  original  medical  literature  and  assess  the  evidence  for  yourself.