Variant 1: Adult or child older than 5 years of age. Acute trauma to the foot. Ottawa rules can be evaluated without exclusionary criteria. Ottawa rules are negative. No suspected abnormalities in regions not evaluated by the Ottawa rules. Initial imaging.
Variant 2: Adult or child older than 5 years of age. Acute trauma to the foot. Ottawa rules can be evaluated without exclusionary criteria. Ottawa rules are positive. Initial imaging.
Variant 3: Adult or child older than 5 years of age. Acute trauma to the foot. Ottawa rules cannot be evaluated due to exclusionary criteria. Initial imaging.
Variant 4: Adult or child older than 5 years of age. Acute trauma to the foot. Ottawa rules can be evaluated without exclusionary criteria. Ottawa rules are negative. Suspected pathology in an anatomic area not addressed by Ottawa rules (not involving the midfoot; eg, metatarsal-phalangeal joint, metatarsal, toe, tendon, etc). Initial imaging.
Variant 5: Adult or child older than 5 years of age. Acute trauma to the foot. Suspect Lisfranc injury, tendon injury, or occult fracture or dislocation. Radiographs are normal or equivocal. Next imaging study.
Variant 6: Adult or child older than 5 years of age. Acute trauma to the foot. Suspect penetrating trauma with a foreign body. Radiographs of the foot are negative. Next imaging study.
Appendix Key

A more complete discussion of the items presented below can be found by accessing the supporting documents at the designated hyperlinks.

Appropriateness Category:The panel’s recommendation for a procedure based on the assessment of the risks and benefits of performing the procedure for the specified clinical scenario.

SOE: Strength of Evidence. The assessment of the amount and quality of evidence found in the peer reviewed medical literature for an appropriateness recommendation.

  • References: The citation number and PMID for the reference(s) associated with the recommendation.
  • Study Quality: The assessment of the quality of an individual reference based on the number of study quality elements described in the reference.

RRL: Relative Radiation Level. A population based assessment of the amount of radiation a typical patient may be exposed to during the specified procedure.

Rating: The final rating (1-9 scale) for the procedure as determined by the panel during rating rounds.

Median: The median rating (1-9 scale) for the procedure as determined by the panel during rating rounds.

Final tabulations: A histogram showing the number of panel members who rated the procedure as noted in the column heading (ie, 1, 2, 3, etc.).

Additional supporting documents about the AC methodology and processes can be found at www.acr.org/ac.