Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2008 Dec 9:337:a2428.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2428.

Elbow extension test to rule out elbow fracture: multicentre, prospective validation and observational study of diagnostic accuracy in adults and children

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Elbow extension test to rule out elbow fracture: multicentre, prospective validation and observational study of diagnostic accuracy in adults and children

A Appelboam et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether full elbow extension as assessed by the elbow extension test can be used in routine clinical practice to rule out bony injury in patients presenting with elbow injury.

Design: Adults: multicentre prospective interventional validation study in secondary care. Children: multicentre prospective observational study in secondary care.

Setting: Five emergency departments in southwest England.

Participants: 2127 adults and children presenting to the emergency department with acute elbow injury.

Intervention: Elbow extension test during routine care by clinical staff to determine the need for radiography in adults and to guide follow-up in children.

Main outcome measures: Presence of elbow fracture on radiograph, or recovery with no indication for further review at 7-10 days.

Results: Of 1740 eligible participants, 602 patients were able to fully extend their elbow; 17 of these patients had a fracture. Two adult patients with olecranon fractures needed a change in treatment. In the 1138 patients without full elbow extension, 521 fractures were identified. Overall, the test had sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) for detecting elbow fracture of 96.8% (95.0 to 98.2) and 48.5% (45.6 to 51.4). Full elbow extension had a negative predictive value for fracture of 98.4% (96.3 to 99.5) in adults and 95.8% (92.6 to 97.8) in children. Negative likelihood ratios were 0.03 (0.01 to 0.08) in adults and 0.11 (0.06 to 0.19) in children.

Conclusion: The elbow extension test can be used in routine practice to inform clinical decision making. Patients who cannot fully extend their elbow after injury should be referred for radiography, as they have a nearly 50% chance of fracture. For those able to fully extend their elbow, radiography can be deferred if the practitioner is confident that an olecranon fracture is not present. Patients who do not undergo radiography should return if symptoms have not resolved within 7-10 days.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None
Details of patients undergoing the elbow extension test. Combined totals are shown, with numbers of children in parentheses

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lennon RI, Riyat MS, Hilliam R, Anathkrishnan G, Alderson G. Can a normal range of elbow movement predict a normal elbow x ray? Emerg Med J 2007;24:86-8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon M, et al. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 1993;269:1127-32. - PubMed
    1. Stiell IG, Wells GA, McDowell I, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Cwinn AA, et al. Use of radiography in acute knee injuries: need for clinical decision rules. Acad Emerg Med 1995;2:966-73. - PubMed
    1. Perry JJ, Stiell IG. Impact of clinical decision rules on clinical care of traumatic injuries to the foot and ankle, knee, cervical spine, and head. Injury 2006;37:1157-65. - PubMed
    1. Docherty MA, Schwab RA, Ma OJ. Can elbow extension be used as a test of clinically significant injury? South Med J 2002;95:539-41. - PubMed

Publication types