Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26815896›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2014

Ultrasound diagnosis of supracondylar fractures in children.

K Eckert, N Janssen, O Ackermann, B Schweiger, E Radeloff, P Liedgens

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

K EckertDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Elisabeth Hospital Essen, Klara-Kopp-Weg 1, 45138, Essen, Germany. eckert.kolja@me.com.
N JanssenDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Elisabeth Hospital Essen, Klara-Kopp-Weg 1, 45138, Essen, Germany.
O AckermannDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Klinikum Duisburg, Duisburg, Germany.
B SchweigerDepartment of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
E RadeloffDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Elisabeth Hospital Essen, Klara-Kopp-Weg 1, 45138, Essen, Germany.
P LiedgensDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Elisabeth Hospital Essen, Klara-Kopp-Weg 1, 45138, Essen, Germany.
Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Essen · DEBG Klinikum Duisburg · DEUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of our study was to evaluate the safety and accuracy of ultrasound (US) compared to standard radiographs in diagnosing supracondylar fractures (SCFs) of the humerus in children. PATIENTS AND

methodsA total of 106 children (aged between 1 and 13 years) with clinically suspected SCF of the humerus were primarily examined by US followed by standard two-plane radiographs of the elbow. US was conducted with a linear scanner viewing the distal humerus from seven standardized sectional planes. US fracture diagnosis was established either by a cortical bulging or cortical gap, or by a positive dorsal fat pad (dFP) sign. X-ray diagnosis was stated by an independent pediatric radiologist and, afterwards, compared to our US findings. Sonographic and radiographic findings were collected in a contingency table. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) for US fracture diagnosis were calculated according to the radiographs. In addition, by identifying significant angulation and/or disrupture, SCFs were classified as non-operative/stable and operative/instable SCFs according to the AO Pediatric Fracture Classification System.

resultsBy US, a SCF could be excluded in 43 patients and in 63 patients, a fracture was diagnosed. In contrast, by radiographs, an SCF could be excluded in 46 patients and in 60 patients, a fracture was diagnosed. For US fracture diagnosis in comparison to radiographs, we calculated a sensitivity of 100 %, a specificity of 93.5 %, an NPV of 100 %, and a PPV of 95.2 %. Thirty-nine SCFs were sonographically classified as stable grades 1/2 SCFs and confirmed in 37 patients by X-rays. All four operative/instable SCFs were correctly identified by US.

conclusionBy identifying a positive dFP sign and/or cortical lesions of the distal humerus, SCFs can be detected very sensitively by US. Even the estimation of fracture displacement seems to be possible. We suggest US as an applicable alternative method in the primary evaluation of suspected SCF in children, guiding further diagnostics, where appropriate. After minor injuries, if clinical assessment for an elbow fracture is low and US examination is negative for fracture, additional radiographs are dispensable. Thereby, the amount of X-ray burden during childhood can be reduced, without loss of diagnostic safety.

Indexed as

ChildrenElbowHumerusSupracondylar fractureUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID26815896
OpenAlexW2127592702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.