Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hendey GW August 2000 USA | University affiliated level 1 trauma centre Emergency department. 104 Patients with suspected shoulder dislocations. 28 patients has recurrent atraumatic dislocations (group 1). 76 had no previous shoulder dislocation or had blunt trauma (group 2) | Prospective Observational study | Accuracy of Assessment of joint position by Emergency physician when clinically certain. | Accuracy of Emergency physicians in assessing position of joint 'when confident' for group 1 : 100% (95%CI; 92%-100%) And for group 2: 98% in pre reduction assessment (95%CI; 91%-100%). And 100% in post reduction of position (95% CI; 93%-100%) | Small numbers No standardized protocol or training for assessment of joint position or arrangement for expression of degree of uncertainty among physicians about the joint position. |
Pre and post reduction radiology reports of films. | No fracture in group one Ten patients in group 2 had fracture dislocations | ||||
Schuster M et al. November 1999 Canada | 97 patients suspected shoulder dislocation Men 82 Mean age 33.5 Range 16-75 Rural hospital and Ski Hill clinics. Nearly 90% happened during skiing (post injury dislocations). | Prospective Observational cohort study | Accuracy of Emergency Physician in diagnosing dislocated shoulder. | Accuracy of Emergency Physician100% (95% CI; 94.8%-100%). | Non randomized. No protocol in the way the patients treated followed, non standard approach to treatment. Small study size and unconventional comparison of practice of small clinic with hospital. |
Pre reduction radiograph does not alter the patients' management. | All fractures identified in pre reduction radiograph were seen in post reduction radiograph. | ||||
Pre reduction x rays delay time to reduction. | No fracture required surgical intervention. Mean time of reduction was 26 min shorter when no pre-reduction x ray involved. | ||||
Hendey GW et al. July 2006 USA | 100 patients with suspected dislocation of shoulder, (94 had dislocation) in a university affiliated level 1 trauma centre, emergency department. Minors, incarcerated and intoxicated patients as well as those who refused the consent excluded 79 men 59 recurrent dislocations 40 atraumatic 87 Dislocations without fracture | Prospective cohort study (validation study for shoulder dislocation - radiography decision rule). | Primary out come; Validation of dicision rule. | Considering the number of patients needed to power the study to 95% CI, use of this protocol was successful but not possible to validate with this study. | Physicians were allowed to deviate from protocol. Up to 39% of all patients lost in long term follow up. Hill sachs and Bankart lesions were not included as clinically significant injuries. |
Secondary outcomes were; 1 - Reduction in x-ray utilization. | 46% overall reduction in x-ray usage. | ||||
2 - Missed fracture or dislocation by application of the rule. | Only 61% traceable patient in follow up of which no missed fracture or dislocation were discovered by the investigators. | ||||
3 - Total treatment time comparison. | Mean time in ED if both pre and post films taken 288 mins If either pre or post films taken 245 | ||||
4 - Assess patient satisfaction | 76 patients were contacted within the first day post visit and 75 (99%) were satisfied with the care their received in Emergency department. | ||||
Shuster M et al. March 2002 Canada | Convenience sample of 63 patients with suspected shoulder dislocation, in a rural community hospital Emergency department. Supporting large ski and snowboarding recreational area. 87.3% male. Age range 17-79y Mean age: 33y 86% has ski or snowboard injuries. | Prospective cohort study.(validation of decision rule) | Accuracy of Emergency physician in diagnosing shoulder dislocation, when certain. | Physician accuracy of diagnosis of shoulder dislocation when certain 100% (59/59) Degree of certainty 93.7% (59/63) | Small numbers Treatment guideline not enforced (82.5% followed the guideline). No control group allocated. Not possible to account for all patients post reduction pathology |
Reduction on use of x ray usage. | Use of treatment guideline reduced pre- reduction X rays by 88.9%, (95% CI, 78.4%-95.4%) p<0.0001. Omitting pre-reduction radiograph with use of a guideline can be safe when treating EP is certain of diagnosis. |