Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Decision Rules to Exclude Fractures in Acute Ankle Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ankle decision rules are developed to expedite patient care and reduce the number of radiographs of the ankle and foot. Currently, only three systematic reviews have been conducted on the accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Foot Rules (OAFR) in adults and children. However, no systematic review has been performed to determine the most accurate ankle decision rule. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to examine which clinical decision rules are the most accurate for excluding ankle fracture after acute ankle trauma. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE. The sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of the included studies were calculated. A meta-analysis was conducted if the accuracy of a decision rule was available from at least three different experimental studies. RESULTS: Eighteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. These included six ankle decision rules, specifically, the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Tuning Fork Test, Low Risk Ankle Rule, Malleolar and Midfoot Zone Algorithms, and the Bernese Ankle Rules. Meta-analysis of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), OAFR, Bernese Ankle Rules, and the Malleolar Zone Algorithm resulted in a negative likelihood ratio of 0.12, 0.14, 0.39, and 0.23, respectively. CONCLUSION: The OAR and OAFR are the most accurate decision rules for excluding fractures in the event of an acute ankle injury.

Characteristics of self-care interventions for patients with a chronic condition: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Self-care is a fundamental element of treatment for patients with a chronic condition and a major focus of many interventions. A large body of research exists describing different types of self-care interventions, but these studies have never been compared across conditions. Examination of heterogeneous interventions could provide insights into effective approaches that should be used in diverse patient populations. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive and standardized cross-condition overview of interventions to enhance self-care in patients with a chronic condition. Specific aims were to: 1) identify what self-care concepts and behaviors are evaluated in self-care interventions; 2) classify and quantify heterogeneity in mode and type of delivery; 3) quantify the behavior change techniques used to enhance self-care behavior; and 4) assess the dose of self-care interventions delivered. DESIGN: Scoping review DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases - PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL - were searched from January 2008 through January 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with concealed allocation to the intervention were included if they compared a behavioral or educational self- care intervention to usual care or another self-care intervention and were conducted in adults. Nine common chronic conditions were included: hypertension, coronary artery disease, arthritis, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, stroke, asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diagnoses that are psychiatric (e.g. schizophrenia), acute rather than chronic, or benefitting little from self-care (e.g. dementia) were excluded. Studies had to be reported in English with full-text available. RESULTS: 9309 citations were considered and 233 studies were included in the final review. Most studies addressed type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 85; 36%), hypertension (n = 32; 14%) or heart failure (n = 27; 12%). The majority (97%) focused on healthy behaviors like physical activity (70%), dietary intake (59%), and medication management (52%). Major deficits found in self-care interventions included a lack of attention to the psychological consequences of chronic illness, technology and behavior change techniques were rarely used, few studies focused on helping patients manage signs and symptoms, and the interventions were rarely innovative. Research reporting was generally poor. CONCLUSIONS: Major gaps in targeted areas of self-care were identified. Opportunities exist to improve the quality and reporting of future self-care intervention research. Registration: The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (#123,719).

Ankle Bracing is Effective for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Acute Ankle Injuries in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Ankle bracing has been verified as being effective for secondary prevention of ankle injuries. However, new studies have recently been published that are not included in previous meta-analyses. Furthermore, the effects of bracing for primary prevention of ankle injuries are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to systematically review the literature about the effectiveness of ankle bracing on primary and secondary prevention of acute ankle injuries in athletes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and PEDro databases for eligible articles until July 2018. Randomized controlled trials that studied ankle bracing vs. no intervention for athletes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted to study the effect of ankle bracing for primary and secondary prevention of ankle injuries. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method was used to determine the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included six randomized controlled trials. Significant risk ratios of 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.32-0.88) and 0.37 (95% confidence interval 0.24-0.58) were found in favor of ankle bracing vs. no ankle bracing for primary (low quality of evidence, I2 = 77%) and secondary prevention (moderate quality of evidence, I2 = 0%) of acute ankle injuries. Numbers needed to treat were 26 and 12 for the primary and secondary prevention of acute ankle injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle bracing is effective for primary and secondary prevention of acute ankle injuries among athletes. However, conclusions in regard to primary prevention should be drawn cautiously because of the low quality of evidence and significant heterogeneity.