Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T15:05:03.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison views to diagnose elbow injuries in children: a survey of Canadian non-pediatric emergency physicians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Shawn Dowling*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta
Ken Farion
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ont., and University of Ottawa, Ottawa
Tammy Clifford
Affiliation:
Chalmers Research Group, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.
*
407–321 10th St. NW, Calgary AB; 403 283-1322, sdowling@ucalgary.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

Elbow injuries in children are a common presenting complaint to the emergency department. Although radiography is a valuable tool in the diagnosis of this injury, x-rays of the injured elbow are inherently difficult to interpret. As a result, comparison views of the uninjured arm have traditionally been recommended to provide an anatomically “normal” radiograph. Recent studies have questioned the use of comparison views in the pediatric emergency department. The primary objective of this study was to determine current practices of non-pediatric emergency physicians in the use of comparison views for the diagnosis of elbow injuries in children.

Methods:

A self-administered mail survey was sent to 300 randomly selected emergency physicians, using the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians database.

Results:

Two hundred and forty-two (81%) responses were received; 26 were excluded based on pre-determined criteria. Of eligible respondents, 95% ordered comparison views selectively and 64% of these physicians ordered comparison views infrequently. Eighty-eight percent found the comparison views to be “rarely” to “sometimes” useful. Forty-seven percent of respondents stated that they were only “somewhat” confident when interpreting x-rays of a child's elbow.

Conclusion:

This survey demonstrates that non-pediatric emergency physicians are using comparison views selectively for elbow injuries in children, despite being only “somewhat” confident in interpreting the x-rays.

Type
Pediatric EM • Pédiatrie d’urgence
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2005

References

1.Gallagher, SS, Finison, K, Guyer, B, Goodenough, S. The incidence of injuries among 87,000 Massachusetts children and adolescents: results of the 1980–81 Statewide Childhood Injury Prevention Program Surveillance System. Am J Public Health 1984;74:1340–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Nicholson, DA, Driscoll, PA. ABC of emergency radiology. The elbow. BMJ 1993;307:1058–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Fick, DS, Lyons, TA. Interpreting elbow radiographs in children. Am Fam Physician 1997;55:1278–82.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Swischuk, LE. Emergency radiology of the acutely ill or injured child. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins;1986.Google Scholar
5.Chacon, D, Kissoon, N, Brown, T, Galpin, R. Use of comparison radiographs in the diagnosis of traumatic injuries of the elbow. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:895–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Kissoon, N, Galpin, R, Gayle, M, Chacon, D, Brown, T. Evaluation of the role of comparison radiographs in the diagnosis of traumatic elbow injuries. J Ped Orthop 1995;15:449–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Dillman, DA. Mail & Internet surveys: the Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley; 2000.Google Scholar
8.Altman, DG, Gore, SM, Gardner, MJ, Pocock, SJ. Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. BMJ 1983;286:1489–93.Google Scholar
9.Farion, KJ, Morrison, LJ. Redefining emergency medicine procedures: Canadian competence and frequency survey. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:731–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed