2020
DOI: 10.21203/rs.2.19203/v3
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards Improving the Identification of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears in Primary Point-of-Care Settings

Abstract: Background: Only a small proportion of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are diagnosed on initial healthcare consultation. Current clinical guidelines do not acknowledge that primary point-of-care practitioners rely more heavily on a clinical history than special clinical tests for diagnosis of an ACL tear. This research will assess the accuracy of combinations of patient-reported variables alone, and in combination with clinician-generated variables to identify an ACL tear as a preliminary step to design… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 37 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the findings of this paper reflect that the diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment has high degrees of variability (Table 7 ), diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessments has been reported consistently high in other papers [ 31 35 ]. Though it must considered that the majority of findings in such papers are based on injuries that are no longer in the acute time frame [ 31 , 33 , 34 ], which minimises the obstacles that are associated with acute assessment [ 7 , 9 ]. In addition, the assessors were often highly experienced in assessing acute knee injury [ 33 ], and the respective diagnostic accuracy values were reported in a primary [ 32 ], or secondary care [ 31 ] setting, or they were performed under anaesthesia [ 35 ]; this is not reflective of front door assessing practitioners that complete the initial assessment screening process in the ED.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the findings of this paper reflect that the diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment has high degrees of variability (Table 7 ), diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessments has been reported consistently high in other papers [ 31 35 ]. Though it must considered that the majority of findings in such papers are based on injuries that are no longer in the acute time frame [ 31 , 33 , 34 ], which minimises the obstacles that are associated with acute assessment [ 7 , 9 ]. In addition, the assessors were often highly experienced in assessing acute knee injury [ 33 ], and the respective diagnostic accuracy values were reported in a primary [ 32 ], or secondary care [ 31 ] setting, or they were performed under anaesthesia [ 35 ]; this is not reflective of front door assessing practitioners that complete the initial assessment screening process in the ED.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%