RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ankle sprain is frequently encountered, both in primary care and in emergency departments. Since 1992, the Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) can assist clinicians in determining whether an X-ray should be performed to exclude a fracture. Several guidelines recommend the use of OAR based on a systematic review from 2003. Ten years later, one can wonder if this recommendation should be changed. OBJECTIVE: To review systematically the current evidence on the most accurate method to assess the fracture risk after an ankle sprain in adults. METHODS: A methodical search for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and primary studies was carried out in Medline, Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, Embase, Pedro, CINAHL, Medion and specific guideline search engines. At least two independent researchers performed selection, quality appraisal (with validated checklists) and data extraction. RESULTS: One systematic review and 21 primary studies were selected. Sensitivity and specificity of the OAR range from 92-100% and from 16-51%, respectively. To improve the OAR specificity, other tools are proposed such as the Bernese ankle rules. Vibrating tuning fork test and ultrasound could be useful in patient with OAR positive to decrease the need for radiographs. No evidence was found in favour of the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) in the acute phase of ankle sprain. CONCLUSION: The findings confirm the value of the OAR at ruling out fractures after an ankle sprain and propose other or additional tools to decrease the need for X-rays.
Asunto(s)
Fracturas de Tobillo/diagnóstico , Traumatismos del Tobillo/diagnóstico , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Enfermedad Aguda , Adulto , Fracturas de Tobillo/diagnóstico por imagen , Traumatismos del Tobillo/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Riesgo , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Premature children are at increased risk of complications from vaccine-preventable diseases and should be vaccinated with the routinely recommended childhood vaccines at the same chronological age as full-term infants with the exception of the hepatitis B vaccine for infants of HBsAg-positive mothers. We sought to compare on-time vaccination levels in premature children for recommended vaccinations to levels in children born at term. METHODS: Using linked health administrative databases, we compared the proportion of term (37+ wks), near term (33-36 wks), very premature (28-32 wks) and extremely premature (≤27 wks) children who received at least one vaccination during the 2-, 4- and 6-month vaccination visits within the recommended time period in the province of Ontario. RESULTS: When we excluded children who were hospitalized at any time during the vaccination window, we identified that vaccination rates were within 3% of each other in the 4 categories examined. However, when we included infants who may have been hospitalized at any point during the on-time window, we observed substantially lower rates in the extremely premature children at 2 and 4 months and in the very premature children at 2 months. CONCLUSION: Our study identifies the need to confirm whether vaccinations are given while premature children are in hospital during the time of their scheduled vaccinations.