Revisiting the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ottawa Ankle Rules for Ankle Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
学术急诊医学档案,
卷 14 编号 1 (2026),
1 十月 2025
,
第 e24 页
https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v14i1.3051
摘要
Introduction: The Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) have demonstrated conflicting results across studies, with generally high sensitivity but relatively low and variable specificity. This updated meta-analysis aims to evaluate the overall diagnostic characteristics of the OAR for early identification of ankle fractures in adult patients.
Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a comprehensive literature search was conducted from database inception through May 2026 across three electronic databases, including Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. The MIDAS package in STATA and Meta-Disc software were used to pool the findings of the diagnostic accuracy studies. Clinical application of the OAR was assessed using Fagan’s nomogram and scattergram.
Results: The pooled sensitivity and specificity of OAR were 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91–0.93) and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.34–0.36), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 1.76 (95% CI: 1.46–2.13) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.09–0.19), respectively. Furthermore, the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 16.21 (95% CI: 10.15–25.89).
Conclusion: In conclusion, the OAR demonstrate excellent sensitivity and a very low negative likelihood ratio, confirming their value as a reliable screening tool for ruling out ankle fractures in clinical practice. With pooled sensitivities exceeding 90% and a post-test probability reduced to approximately 1% following a negative result, the OAR can safely reduce unnecessary radiographic imaging.
- Ankle Fractures
- Ankle Injuries
- Clinical Decision Rules
- Ottawa Ankle Rules
- Meta-analysis
##submission.howToCite##
参考
1. Lambers K, Ootes D, Ring D. Incidence of patients with lower extremity injuries presenting to US emergency departments by anatomic region, disease category, and age. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):284-90.
2. Niska R, Bhuiya F, Xu J. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2007 emergency department summary. Natl Health Stat Report. 2010(26):1-31.
3. Matharu G, Najran P, Porter K. Soft-tissue ankle injuries. Trauma. 2010;12 (2):105 - 15.
4. Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363(9406):345-51.
5. Beckenkamp PR, Lin CC, Macaskill P, Michaleff ZA, Maher CG, Moseley AM. Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(6):504-10.
6. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Worthington JR. A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 1992;21(4):384-90.
7. Bachmann LM, Kolb E, Koller MT, Steurer J, ter Riet G. Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review. Bmj. 2003;326(7386):417.
8. Gomes YE, Chau M, Banwell HA, Causby RS. Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa ankle rule to exclude fractures in acute ankle injuries in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):885.
9. Gomes YE, Chau M, Banwell HA, Davies J, Causby RS. Adequacy of clinical information in X-ray referrals for traumatic ankle injury with reference to the Ottawa Ankle Rules-a retrospective clinical audit. PeerJ. 2020;8:e10152.
10. Barelds I, Krijnen WP, van de Leur JP, van der Schans CP, Goddard RJ. Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Decision Rules to Exclude Fractures in Acute Ankle Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Emerg Med. 2017;53(3):353-68.
11. Dowling S, Spooner CH, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Friesen C, Klassen TP, et al. Accuracy of Ottawa Ankle Rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and midfoot in children: a meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(4):277-87.
12. Ahmad I, Rehman S, ur Rehman I, Qayyum SF, Siraj N. Diagnostic accuracy of Ottawa rules in diagnosing ankle fractures among patients taking X ray as gold standard.
Professional Med J. 2025;32(05):522-7.
13. Ak R, Kurt E, Bahadırlı S, Semih Çakır M, Bilgü AS, Kurt Ş ZE. The Comparison of Ottawa Ankle Rules and Shetty test performances in foot-ankle trauma patients visited to the emergency department. Injury. 2022;53(6):2287-91.
14. Anyanwu E, Madubueze C, Alada A, Umaru H, Dzong B, Sharif A. Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rule in Blunt Ankle and Midfoot Injuries in a Trauma Care Centre in Nigeria. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2025;15(4):394-9.
15. Auleley GR, Kerboull L, Durieux P, Cosquer M, Courpied JP, Ravaud P. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in France: a study in the surgical emergency department of a teaching hospital. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32(1):14-8.
16. Avinca Ö, Taş M. Comparison of Shetty ankle test and Ottawa ankle rules in ankle injuries. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2023;27(5):1852-5.
17. Beceren GN, Yolcu S, Tomruk O, Atay T, Baykal YB. Ottawa versus Bernese: which is better? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2013;39(2):147-50.
18. Broomhead A, Stuart P. Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in Australia. Emerg Med (Fremantle). 2003;15(2):126-32.
19. Can U, Ruckert R, Held U, Buchmann P, Platz A, Bachmann LM. Safety and efficiency of the Ottawa Ankle Rule in a Swiss population with ankle sprains. Swiss Med Wkly. 2008;138(19-20):292-6.
20. Daş M, Temiz A, Çevik Y. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules by general practitioners in the emergency department of a Turkish district hospital. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2016;22(4):361-4.
21. Derksen RJ, Knijnenberg LM, Fransen G, Breederveld RS, Heymans MW, Schipper IB. Diagnostic performance of the Bernese versus Ottawa ankle rules: Results of a randomised controlled trial. Injury. 2015;46(8):1645-9.
22. Dwivedi R, Ale S. Evaluation of the accuracy of “Ottawa ankle rules” for predicting fractures in acute ankle and midfoot injuries. J Univ Coll Med Sci. 2014;2(2):2-5.
23. Fiesseler F, Szucs P, Kec R, Richman PB. Can nurses appropriately interpret the Ottawa Ankle Rule? Am J Emerg Med. 2004;22(3):145-8.
24. Glas AS, Pijnenburg BA, Lijmer JG, Bogaard K, de RM, Keeman JN, et al. Comparison of diagnostic decision rules and structured data collection in assessment of acute ankle injury. Cmaj. 2002;166(6):727-33.
25. Jia CQ, Mbori NJR, Li S, Dai Y, Xu F, Porter DE, et al. Ottawa ankle and foot rules in China: applicability in a defensive environment. Eur J Med Res. 2025;30(1):687.
26. Kelly AM, Richards D, Kerr L, Grant J, O'Donovan P, Basire K, et al. Failed validation of a clinical decision rule for the use of radiography in acute ankle injury. N Z Med J. 1994;107(982):294-5.
27. Keogh SP, Shafi A, Wijetunge DB. Comparison of Ottawa ankle rules and current local guidelines for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1998;43(5):341-3.
28. Leisey J. Prospective validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in a deployed military population. Mil Med. 2004;169(10):804-6.
29. Lucchesi GM, Jackson RE, Peacock WF, Cerasani C, Swor RA. Sensitivity of the Ottawa rules. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;26(1):1-5.
30. Makiev KG, Vasios IS, Keskinis A, Moustafa RM, Petkidis G, Ververidis A, et al. Shetty Test Challenges Ottawa Ankle Rules in Detecting Foot and Ankle Fractures: A Prospective Comparative Study. Bull Emerg Trauma. 2025;13(1):20-4.
31. Marinelli M, Di Giulio A, Mancini M. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in a second-level trauma center in Italy. J Orthop Traumatol. 2007;8(1):16-20.
32. McBride KL. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules. Experience at a community hospital. Can Fam Physician. 1997;43:459-65.
33. Morais B, Branquinho A, Barreira M, Correia J, Machado M, Marques N, et al. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules: Strategies for increasing specificity. Injury. 2021;52(4):1017-22.
34. Murphy J, Weiner DA, Kotler J, McCormick B, Johnson D, Wisbeck J, et al. Utility of Ottawa Ankle Rules in an Aging Population: Evidence for Addition of an Age Criterion. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;59(2):286-90.
35. Özbay H, Yüksel S. Clinical usefulness of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in the overweight and obese population following an acute ankle injury: A prospective cross-sectional study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2021;55(5):435-8.
36. Papacostas E, Malliaropoulos N, Papadopoulos A, Liouliakis C. Validation of Ottawa ankle rules protocol in Greek athletes: study in the emergency departments of a district general hospital and a sports injuries clinic. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35(6):445-7.
37. Perry S, Raby N, Grant PT. Prospective survey to verify the Ottawa ankle rules. J Accid Emerg Med. 1999;16(4):258-60.
38. Pigman EC, Klug RK, Sanford S, Jolly BT. Evaluation of the Ottawa clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle and midfoot injuries in the emergency department: an independent site assessment. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;24(1):41-5.
39. Pijnenburg AC, Glas AS, De Roos MA, Bogaard K, Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, et al. Radiography in acute ankle injuries: the Ottawa Ankle Rules versus local diagnostic decision rules. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;39(6):599-604.
40. Pires R, Pereira A, Abreu ESG, Labronici P, Figueiredo L, Godoy-Santos A, et al. Ottawa ankle rules and subjective surgeon perception to evaluate radiograph necessity following foot and ankle sprain. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014;4(3):432-5.
41. Rosin A, Sinopoli M. Impact of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in a U.S. Army troop medical clinic in South Korea. Mil Med. 1999;164(11):793-4.
42. Salt P, Clancy M. Implementation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules by nurses working in an accident and emergency department. J Accid Emerg Med. 1997;14(6):363-5.
43. Santelli F, Magnanelli R, Pallotto R, Formica L, Polonara S, Marinelli M. Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in athletes: Study in a II level Trauma Center. Med Sport. 2008;61 (3):373-80.
44. Seyhan AU, Ak R, Şimşek F, Ayvacı S, Açıkgöz O. The role of Ottawa ankle rules in geriatric emergency department visits. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2024;30(4):271-5.
45. Singh S. Ottawa Ankle Rule: An Indian Perspective. J Foot Ankle Surg (Asia Pacific). 2015;2(1):8-12.
46. Springer BA, Arciero RA, Tenuta JJ, Taylor DC. A prospective study of modified Ottawa ankle rules in a military population. Interobserver agreement between physical therapists and orthopaedic surgeons. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(6):864-8.
47. Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, McDowell I, Nair RC, Wells GA, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. Jama. 1994;271(11):827-32.
48. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon M, et al. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. Jama. 1993;269(9):1127-32.
49. Thakur AK, Kandel PR. Reliability of ‘Ottawa Ankle Rules’ in Acute Ankle and Midfoot Injuries. J Univ Coll Med Sci. 2022;10(01):33-6.
50. Verma S, Hamilton K, Hawkins HH, Kothari R, Singal B, Buncher R, et al. Clinical application of the Ottawa ankle rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: an independent site assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(3):825-7.
51. Wang X, Chang SM, Yu GR, Rao ZT. Clinical value of the Ottawa ankle rules for diagnosis of fractures in acute ankle injuries. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e63228.
52. Wynn-Thomas S, Love T, McLeod D, Vernall S, Kljakovic M, Dowell A, et al. The Ottawa ankle rules for the use of diagnostic X-ray in after hours medical centres in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2002;115(1162):U184.
- 摘要 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.viewed##: 29 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.times##
- pdf (English) ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.downloaded##: 43 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.times##
##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.downloadstatastics##
##plugins.block.makeSubmission.linkLabel##
SJR
COPE
