ArticleCureus2026
Management of Ankle Sprains in Urgent Care: Adherence to Evidence-Based Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Ankle injuries are among the most common reasons for urgent care visits. Evidence-based guidelines, particularly the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), aim to standardize assessment and reduce unnecessary imaging. Despite strong evidence supporting their diagnostic accuracy, clinicians' adherence remains variable. This variability can lead to suboptimal patient outcomes, such as chronic joint instability and increased healthcare costs. This study assesses physicians' compliance with OAR and related management recommendations and identifies barriers that hinder appropriate guideline use. Objectives The primary objective is to measure the prevalence of adherence to evidence-based guidelines, specifically the OAR, among urgent care physicians. Secondary objectives include evaluating physicians' self-reported familiarity with these guidelines, identifying associated factors affecting compliance, and exploring perceived barriers to implementation. Methods A cross-sectional analytical survey was distributed electronically to physicians working in urgent care and emergency services. A total of 74 participants completed the questionnaire. The survey addressed physicians' use of OAR, rehabilitation advice, perceived barriers, and training background. Results While only 41.9% routinely applied structured rehabilitation protocols, 70.3% of physicians reported using the OAR. Most respondents (83.8%) provided patient education regarding prevention and rehab. However, 68.9% indicated a need for further training. The most commonly cited barriers were time constraints (32.4%), inadequate guideline training (31.1%), insufficient resources (14.9%), and patient non-adherence (19.4%). Additionally, 87.7% had not attended recent workshops, though 85.1% expressed willingness to receive further education. Conclusion The study reveals inconsistencies in adhering to ankle injury guidelines in urgent care. Enhancing clinician training and implementing standardized protocols can reduce diagnostic errors and unnecessary imaging. Ongoing education and quality improvement initiatives are essential for providing better care for ankle injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.