Shoulder DislocationNCT01585467
Anterior Shoulder Dislocation
An observational study of Shoulder Dislocation, run by University of California, San Francisco at 2 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
To compare and validate the two clinical algorithms Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Shoulder Dislocation
- How many people
- 300 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- Feb 2010to Dec 2014
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Community sample
Who may be able to join
- adult patients 18 years and older
- patient with a suspected acute anterior shoulder dislocation
Who cannot join
- patients under 18 years of age
- prisoners
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 2 countries.
2 sites in 2 countries
United States1 site
University of California, San Francisco-Fresno
Fresno, California, 93701
About this study
Official title: Selective Radiography in Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: Prospective Validation Rule of Decision Rules Derived in Fresno and Quebec
To compare and validate the two clinical algorithms
Read the detailed description
Clinical Decision rules have safely and successfully allowed clinicians to reduce the total number of radiographs ordered, while detecting patients with important pathology or injuries. The Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules were developed from a series of studies, and have successfully reduced the number of radiographs ordered by physicians without missing serious ankle fractures (1-4). Likewise, the NEXUS group developed a clinical decision rule for the selection of blunt trauma patients who are appropriate for imaging, based on clinical features (5).
Drs. Hendey and Emond have separately developed similar algorithms for selective radiography in patients with a suspected shoulder dislocation (6-10). The goal of the current study is to compare and validate the two clinical algorithms.
Both approaches examine clinical features that are readily accessible to the physician at the time of ED evaluation. In the pre-reduction assessment, both algorithms included the mechanism of injury and whether the patient had experienced a previous shoulder dislocation. Hendey additionally assessed whether the physician was clinically confident of the dislocation (8). Emond additionally included the age of the patient, and the presence or absence of humeral ecchymosis (9). In the post-reduction assessment, both algorithms emphasize the importance of clinical certainty of reduction, as well as the presence of a fracture dislocation.
- Conditions
- Shoulder Dislocation
- Keywords
- Anterior Shoulder Dislocation, Shoulder Dislocation, Shoulder Pain, Shoulder Deformity
- Medical subject headings
- Shoulder Dislocation, Shoulder Pain
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Prospective validation of clinical decision rules
Measured: to be measured at study conclusion
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Apr 2012 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2010
- Primary completionDec 2014
- Study completionDec 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Shoulder DislocationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of California, San FranciscoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of California, San Francisco
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01585467
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 02102010
- Status last verified
- May 2015
- First submitted
- 24 Apr 2012
- Last updated
- 7 May 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, McDowell I, Nair RC, Wells GA, Johns C, Worthington JR. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. JAMA. 1994 Mar 16;271(11):827-32.
PubMed 8114236Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon M, Stewart JP, Maloney J. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA. 1993 Mar 3;269(9):1127-32. doi: 10.1001/jama.269.9.1127.
PubMed 8433468Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, Clement CM, Lesiuk H, De Maio VJ, Laupacis A, Schull M, McKnight RD, Verbeek R, Brison R, Cass D, Dreyer J, Eisenhauer MA, Greenberg GH, MacPhail I, Morrison L, Reardon M, Worthington J. The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA. 2001 Oct 17;286(15):1841-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.15.1841.
PubMed 11597285Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, McDowell I, Cwinn AA, Smith NA, Cacciotti TF, Sivilotti ML. Prospective validation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA. 1996 Feb 28;275(8):611-5.
PubMed 8594242Hoffman JR, Mower WR, Wolfson AB, Todd KH, Zucker MI. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jul 13;343(2):94-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200007133430203.
PubMed 10891516Hendey GW, Kinlaw K. Clinically significant abnormalities in postreduction radiographs after anterior shoulder dislocation. Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Oct;28(4):399-402. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70004-5.
PubMed 8839524Hendey GW. Necessity of radiographs in the emergency department management of shoulder dislocations. Ann Emerg Med. 2000 Aug;36(2):108-113. doi: 10.1067/mem.2000.108314.
PubMed 10918101Hendey GW, Chally MK, Stewart VB. Selective radiography in 100 patients with suspected shoulder dislocation. J Emerg Med. 2006 Jul;31(1):23-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2005.09.006.
PubMed 16798149Emond M, Le Sage N, Lavoie A, Moore L. Refinement of the Quebec decision rule for radiography in shoulder dislocation. CJEM. 2009 Jan;11(1):36-43. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500010903.
PubMed 19166638Emond M, Le Sage N, Lavoie A, Rochette L. Clinical factors predicting fractures associated with an anterior shoulder dislocation. Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Aug;11(8):853-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2004.tb00768.x.
PubMed 15289192
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 May 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Selective Radiography in Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: Prospective Validation Rule of Decision Rules Derived in Fresno and Quebec
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01585467
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 02102010
- Conditions
- Shoulder Dislocation
- Keywords
- Anterior Shoulder Dislocation, Shoulder Dislocation, Shoulder Pain, Shoulder Deformity
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of California, San FranciscoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2010
- Primary completion
- Dec 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Apr 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To compare and validate the two clinical algorithms
Detailed description
Clinical Decision rules have safely and successfully allowed clinicians to reduce the total number of radiographs ordered, while detecting patients with important pathology or injuries. The Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules were developed from a series of studies, and have successfully reduced the number of radiographs ordered by physicians without missing serious ankle fractures (1-4). Likewise, the NEXUS group developed a clinical decision rule for the selection of blunt trauma patients who are appropriate for imaging, based on clinical features (5).
Drs. Hendey and Emond have separately developed similar algorithms for selective radiography in patients with a suspected shoulder dislocation (6-10). The goal of the current study is to compare and validate the two clinical algorithms.
Both approaches examine clinical features that are readily accessible to the physician at the time of ED evaluation. In the pre-reduction assessment, both algorithms included the mechanism of injury and whether the patient had experienced a previous shoulder dislocation. Hendey additionally assessed whether the physician was clinically confident of the dislocation (8). Emond additionally included the age of the patient, and the presence or absence of humeral ecchymosis (9). In the post-reduction assessment, both algorithms emphasize the importance of clinical certainty of reduction, as well as the presence of a fracture dislocation.
Study design
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Community sample
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- adult patients 18 years and older
- patient with a suspected acute anterior shoulder dislocation
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- patients under 18 years of age
- prisoners
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Prospective validation of clinical decision rules
Time frame: to be measured at study conclusion
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 May 2015.
- Background: PubMed 8114236Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, McDowell I, Nair RC, Wells GA, Johns C, Worthington JR. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. JAMA. 1994 Mar 16;271(11):827-32.
- Background: PubMed 8433468Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon M, Stewart JP, Maloney J. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA. 1993 Mar 3;269(9):1127-32. doi: 10.1001/jama.269.9.1127.
- Background: PubMed 11597285Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, Clement CM, Lesiuk H, De Maio VJ, Laupacis A, Schull M, McKnight RD, Verbeek R, Brison R, Cass D, Dreyer J, Eisenhauer MA, Greenberg GH, MacPhail I, Morrison L, Reardon M, Worthington J. The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA. 2001 Oct 17;286(15):1841-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.15.1841.
- Background: PubMed 8594242Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, McDowell I, Cwinn AA, Smith NA, Cacciotti TF, Sivilotti ML. Prospective validation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA. 1996 Feb 28;275(8):611-5.
- Background: PubMed 10891516Hoffman JR, Mower WR, Wolfson AB, Todd KH, Zucker MI. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jul 13;343(2):94-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200007133430203.
- Background: PubMed 8839524Hendey GW, Kinlaw K. Clinically significant abnormalities in postreduction radiographs after anterior shoulder dislocation. Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Oct;28(4):399-402. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70004-5.
- Background: PubMed 10918101Hendey GW. Necessity of radiographs in the emergency department management of shoulder dislocations. Ann Emerg Med. 2000 Aug;36(2):108-113. doi: 10.1067/mem.2000.108314.
- Background: PubMed 16798149Hendey GW, Chally MK, Stewart VB. Selective radiography in 100 patients with suspected shoulder dislocation. J Emerg Med. 2006 Jul;31(1):23-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2005.09.006.
- Background: PubMed 19166638Emond M, Le Sage N, Lavoie A, Moore L. Refinement of the Quebec decision rule for radiography in shoulder dislocation. CJEM. 2009 Jan;11(1):36-43. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500010903.
- Background: PubMed 15289192Emond M, Le Sage N, Lavoie A, Rochette L. Clinical factors predicting fractures associated with an anterior shoulder dislocation. Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Aug;11(8):853-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2004.tb00768.x.
Related trials for Shoulder Dislocation
Not yet recruiting
Early arthroscoPic Stabilization veRsus rehabilitatiOn of the Shoulder in Adolescents With a trauMatic First-time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation ePisode.
Shoulder Dislocation
Recruiting
Validation of an Upper Extremity Physical Performance Test Battery in Patients After Shoulder Dislocation
Return to Sport, Shoulder Dislocation or Subluxation
RecruitingObservational study
Exactech Proximal Humerus Fracture Plate System Post Market Clinical Follow-up
Proximal Humeral Fracture, Fracture Dislocation
Recruiting
FARES Versus Traction-Countertraction for Acute Anterior Shoulder Dislocation
Acute Anterior Shoulder Dislocation
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Investigation of the Relationship Between Shoulder Alpha Angle and Humeral Head Displacement Percentage Measured by Ultrasonography in Neonatal Brachial Plexus Palsy Infants With Clinical Parameters
Glenohumeral Subluxation, Neonatal Brachial Plexus Palsy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Shoulder Dislocation, run by University of California, San Francisco at 2 sites in 2 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 May 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United States, Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Prospective validation of clinical decision rules (time frame: to be measured at study conclusion). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01585467, which also lists 10 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 May 2015; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.