Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28435501›Full record

Trial reportThe western journal of emergency medicine2017

Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Radiography for Acute Ankle Injuries: A Randomized Trial.

Shahein Tajmir, Ali S Raja, Ivan K Ip, James Andruchow, Patricia Silveira, Stacy Smith, Ramin Khorasani

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Comparative Efficacy of Micro-Needle-Knife Therapy and Acupuncture in Acute Ankle Sprains: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shahein TajmirHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ali S RajaBrigham and Women's Hospital, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ivan K IpBrigham and Women's Hospital, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Boston, Massachusetts.
James AndruchowBrigham and Women's Hospital, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Boston, Massachusetts.
Patricia SilveiraBrigham and Women's Hospital, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stacy SmithBrigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Radiology, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ramin KhorasaniBrigham and Women's Hospital, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile only 15-20% of patients with foot and ankle injuries presenting to urgent care centers have clinically significant fractures, most undergo radiography. We examined the impact of electronic point-of-care clinical decision support (CDS) on adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), as well as use and yield of foot and ankle radiographs in patients with acute ankle injury.

methodsWe obtained institutional review board approval for this randomized controlled study performed April 18, 2012-December 15, 2013. All ordering providers credentialed at an urgent care affiliated with a quaternary care academic hospital were randomized to either receive or not receive CDS, based on the OAR and integrated into the physician order-entry system, with feedback at the time of imaging order. If the patient met OAR low-risk criteria, providers were advised against imaging and could either cancel the order or ignore the alert. We identified patients with foot and ankle complaints via ICD-9 billing codes and electronic health records and radiology reports reviewed for those who were eligible. Chi-square was used to compare adherence to the OAR (primary outcome), radiography utilization rate and radiography yield of foot and ankle imaging (secondary outcomes) between the intervention and control groups.

resultsOf 14,642 patients seen at urgent care during the study period, 613 (4.2%, representing 632 visits) presented with acute ankle injury and were eligible for application of the OAR; 374 (59.2%) of these were seen by control-group providers. In the intervention group, CDS adherence was higher for both ankle (239/258=92.6% vs. 231/374=61.8%, p=0.02) and foot radiography (209/258=81.0% vs. 238/374=63.6%; p<0.01). However, ankle radiography use was higher in the intervention group (166/258=64.3% vs. 183/374=48.9%; p<0.01), while foot radiography use (141/258=54.6% vs. 202/374=54.0%; p=0.95) was not. Radiography yield was also higher in the intervention group (26/307=8.5% vs. 18/385=4.7%; p=0.04).

conclusionClinical decision support, previously demonstrated to improve guideline adherence for high-cost imaging, can also improve guideline adherence for radiography - as demonstrated by increased OAR adherence and increased imaging yield.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalPoint-of-Care SystemsRadiographyAdultAnkle InjuriesDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMalePractice Patterns, Physicians'United States

Identifiers

PMID28435501
PMCPMC5391900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.