The diagnostic characteristics and reliability of radiological methods used in the assessment of scaphoid fracture union : a systematic review.

IF 3.1 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Bone & Joint Open Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1302/2633-1462.63.BJO-2024-0211.R1
Gemma Smith, Wai H Teng, Nicholas D Riley, Christopher Little, Edward Sellon, Neal Thurley, Joe Dias, Benjamin J F Dean
{"title":"The diagnostic characteristics and reliability of radiological methods used in the assessment of scaphoid fracture union : a systematic review.","authors":"Gemma Smith, Wai H Teng, Nicholas D Riley, Christopher Little, Edward Sellon, Neal Thurley, Joe Dias, Benjamin J F Dean","doi":"10.1302/2633-1462.63.BJO-2024-0211.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate the diagnostic characteristics and reliability of radiological methods used to assess scaphoid fracture union through a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 2022. Any study reporting data on the diagnostic characteristics and/or the reliability of radiological methods assessing scaphoid union was included. Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 studies were included, which were three assessed radiographs alone, six CT alone, and four radiographs + CT. Diagnostic sensitivity was assessed by CT in three studies (0.78, 0.78, and 0.73) and by radiographs in two studies (0.65, 0.75). Diagnostic specificity was assessed by CT in three studies (0.96, 0.8, 0.4) and by radiographs in two studies (0.67, 0.4). Interobserver reliability was assessed for radiographs by seven studies (two fair, four moderate, and one substantial) and for CT in nine studies (one fair, one moderate, six substantial, and one almost perfect).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is evidence to support both the use of CT and radiographs in assessing scaphoid fracture union. Although CT appears superior in terms of both its diagnostic characteristics and reliability, further research is necessary to better define the optimal clinical pathways for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":34103,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Open","volume":"6 3","pages":"246-253"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11872279/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.63.BJO-2024-0211.R1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic characteristics and reliability of radiological methods used to assess scaphoid fracture union through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 2022. Any study reporting data on the diagnostic characteristics and/or the reliability of radiological methods assessing scaphoid union was included. Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Results: A total of 13 studies were included, which were three assessed radiographs alone, six CT alone, and four radiographs + CT. Diagnostic sensitivity was assessed by CT in three studies (0.78, 0.78, and 0.73) and by radiographs in two studies (0.65, 0.75). Diagnostic specificity was assessed by CT in three studies (0.96, 0.8, 0.4) and by radiographs in two studies (0.67, 0.4). Interobserver reliability was assessed for radiographs by seven studies (two fair, four moderate, and one substantial) and for CT in nine studies (one fair, one moderate, six substantial, and one almost perfect).

Conclusion: There is evidence to support both the use of CT and radiographs in assessing scaphoid fracture union. Although CT appears superior in terms of both its diagnostic characteristics and reliability, further research is necessary to better define the optimal clinical pathways for patients.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于评估肩胛骨骨折结合的放射学方法的诊断特点和可靠性:系统综述。
目的:通过系统回顾和荟萃分析,评价用于评估舟状骨骨折愈合的放射学方法的诊断特点和可靠性。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane图书馆自成立至2022年6月的文献。所有报告诊断特征和/或评估舟骨愈合的放射学方法可靠性的研究均被纳入。数据被提取出来,并由成对的审稿人检查其准确性和完整性。使用QUADAS-2工具评估方法学质量。结果:共纳入13项研究,其中单独评估x线片3项,单独评估CT 6项,x线片+ CT 4项。三项研究通过CT评估诊断敏感性(0.78、0.78和0.73),两项研究通过x线片评估(0.65、0.75)。三项研究通过CT评估诊断特异性(0.96,0.8,0.4),两项研究通过x线片评估(0.67,0.4)。7项研究评估了x线片的观察者间可靠性(2项一般,4项中等,1项实质),9项研究评估了CT的观察者间可靠性(1项一般,1项中等,6项实质,1项近乎完美)。结论:有证据支持CT和x线片对舟状骨骨折愈合的评估。尽管CT在诊断特征和可靠性方面都具有优势,但需要进一步的研究来更好地确定患者的最佳临床路径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Open
Bone & Joint Open ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Higher revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty among patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with osteoarthritis. Impact of femoral component design on periprosthetic fracture risk in total hip arthroplasty : ten to 15-year follow-up of composite beam and polished taper slip components. Rethinking the role of cartilage loss: the influence of intra- and extra-articular factors on symptoms in advanced knee osteoarthritis. What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgery with Medial Opening wedge high TIbial Osteotomy compared with Non-surgical treatment (MOTION) in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee in patients younger than 60 years? : a protocol for a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. The one-year trajectories of patient-reported outcomes are better for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty : a matched cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1