Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
EDITOR - Bessen et al should be congratulated on their successful
efforts to reduce unnecessary ankle radiographs in acute ankle injuries.
It should, however, be noted that from reading the description of their
methods it clearly took an enormous amount of time, effort and
organization by many people to achieve this. What they have not
demonstrated, as they readily admit, is any benefit to cost, length of
stay or patient satisfaction.(Ref 1)
While the Ottawa ankle rules will always have their sceptics, the
evidence in their favour is compelling. Since their conception and
introduction 25 years ago their high sensitivity (almost 100%) and ability
to reduce unnecessary radiography by up to 40% has been demonstrated
clearly (Ref 2,3,4,5). Given the strength of this evidence, why are they
not being used? There is no simple answer.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the reduction of unnecessary
investigations, this is on the assumption that doing so will save
resources. If the resources required to promote the use of the Ottawa
ankle rules prove greater than the saving from the reduction in
radiography, is it worth it? We need to find a simpler way to ensure their
use.
Competing Interests: None
References:
1: Taryn Bessen, Robyn Clark, Sepehr Shakib, and Geoffrey Hughes. A
multifaceted strategy for implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules in two
emergency departments
BMJ 2009; 339: b3056
2: 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 Apr;21(4):384-90
3: Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon
M, Stewart JP, Maloney J. Decision rules for the use of radiography in
acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA. 1993
Mar 3;269(9):1127-32
4: Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, McDowell I, Nair RC, Wells
GA, Johns C, Worthington JR. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules.
JAMA. 1994 Mar 16;271(11):827-32
5: Lucas M Bachmann, Esther Kolb, Michael T Koller, Johann Steurer,
and Gerben ter Riet. Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures
of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review. BMJ Feb 2003; 326: 417
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
26 August 2009
Alexander J Nicholls
Core Surgical Trainee
Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD
Sir, I would like to point out form personal experience that I have
doubts about the Ottawa ankle rules and do not rely on them. Following a
fall while skiing I suffered an ankle injury. I was assessed by several
medical collegues, all applying the Ottawa rules, and deemed not to
require an x-ray. To validate my insurance I saw an independant doctor
who also assessed using the rules and was confidently diagnosed with a
sprain. 2 weeks later with ongoing pains an x-ray confirmed a spiral
fracture of the distal fibula. Can we really rely on these rules?
Implementation of Ottawa ankle rules - no simple answer
EDITOR - Bessen et al should be congratulated on their successful
efforts to reduce unnecessary ankle radiographs in acute ankle injuries.
It should, however, be noted that from reading the description of their
methods it clearly took an enormous amount of time, effort and
organization by many people to achieve this. What they have not
demonstrated, as they readily admit, is any benefit to cost, length of
stay or patient satisfaction.(Ref 1)
While the Ottawa ankle rules will always have their sceptics, the
evidence in their favour is compelling. Since their conception and
introduction 25 years ago their high sensitivity (almost 100%) and ability
to reduce unnecessary radiography by up to 40% has been demonstrated
clearly (Ref 2,3,4,5). Given the strength of this evidence, why are they
not being used? There is no simple answer.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the reduction of unnecessary
investigations, this is on the assumption that doing so will save
resources. If the resources required to promote the use of the Ottawa
ankle rules prove greater than the saving from the reduction in
radiography, is it worth it? We need to find a simpler way to ensure their
use.
Competing Interests: None
References:
1: Taryn Bessen, Robyn Clark, Sepehr Shakib, and Geoffrey Hughes. A
multifaceted strategy for implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules in two
emergency departments
BMJ 2009; 339: b3056
2: 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 Apr;21(4):384-90
3: Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon
M, Stewart JP, Maloney J. Decision rules for the use of radiography in
acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA. 1993
Mar 3;269(9):1127-32
4: Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, McDowell I, Nair RC, Wells
GA, Johns C, Worthington JR. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules.
JAMA. 1994 Mar 16;271(11):827-32
5: Lucas M Bachmann, Esther Kolb, Michael T Koller, Johann Steurer,
and Gerben ter Riet. Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures
of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review. BMJ Feb 2003; 326: 417
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests