Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Plain radiographs are a globally ubiquitous means of investigation for injuries to the musculoskeletal system. Despite this, initial interpretation remains a challenge and inaccuracies give rise to adverse sequelae for patients and healthcare providers alike. This study sought to address the limited, existing meta-analytic research on the initial reporting of radiographs for skeletal trauma, with specific regard to diagnostic accuracy of the most commonly injured region of the appendicular skeleton, the lower limb.
Method
A prospectively registered, systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using published research from the major clinical-science databases. Studies identified as appropriate for inclusion underwent methodological quality and risk of bias analysis. Meta-analysis was then performed to establish summary rates for specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic accuracy, including covariates by anatomical site, using HSROC and bivariate models.
Results
A total of 3887 articles were screened, with 10 identified as suitable for analysis based on the eligibility criteria. Sensitivity and specificity across the studies were 93.5% and 89.7% respectively. Compared with other anatomical subdivisions, interpretation of ankle radiographs yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity, with values of 98.1% and 94.6% respectively, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 929.97.
Conclusion
Interpretation of lower limb skeletal radiographs operates at a reasonably high degree of sensitivity and specificity. However, one in twenty true positives is missed on initial radiographic interpretation and safety netting systems need to be established to address this. Virtual fracture clinic reviews and teleradiology services in conjunction with novel technology will likely be crucial in these circumstances.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference35 articles.
1. Murphy W. Introduction to the history of musculoskeletal radiology. RadioGraphics. 1990;10(5):915–43.
2. To X-ray or not to X-ray?. Who.int. 2020 [cited 1 October 2020]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/to-x-ray-or-not-to-x-ray-.
3. Activity H, Accident and Emergency Attendances in England - 2009-2010 E, Accident and Emergency Attendances in England - 2009-2010 E, Accident and Emergency Attendances in England - 2009-2010 E, Accident and Emergency Attendances in England - 2009-2010 E, Accident and Emergency Attendances in England - 2009-2010 E et al. Accident and Emergency Attendances in England - 2009-2010, Experimental statistics - NHS Digital [Internet]. NHS Digital. 2020 [cited 26 August 2020]. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-accident%2D%2Demergency-activity/2009-2010.
4. de Lacey G. Number of casualty attenders referred for X-ray examination. Br J Radiol. 1979;52(616):332–4.
5. Guly H. Diagnostic errors in an accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2001;18(4):263–9.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献