Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29216919›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2017

The acutely injured acromioclavicular joint - which imaging modalities should be used for accurate diagnosis? A systematic review.

Jonas Pogorzelski, Knut Beitzel, Francesco Ranuccio, Klaus Wörtler, Andreas B Imhoff, Peter J Millett, Sepp Braun

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Fracture sonography-review of literature and current recommendations.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonas PogorzelskiDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Hospital Rechts der Isar, University of Munich, Ismaninger Street 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Knut BeitzelDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Hospital Rechts der Isar, University of Munich, Ismaninger Street 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Francesco RanuccioDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Hospital Rechts der Isar, University of Munich, Ismaninger Street 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Klaus WörtlerDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Rechts der Isar, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andreas B ImhoffDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Hospital Rechts der Isar, University of Munich, Ismaninger Street 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. imhoff@tum.de.
Peter J MillettOrthopaedic Surgery, The Steadman Clinic, Vail, CO, USA.
Sepp BraunDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Hospital Rechts der Isar, University of Munich, Ismaninger Street 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Klinikum rechts der Isar · DESteadman Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe management of acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries depends on the degree of injury diagnosed by the Rockwood classification. Inadequate imaging and not selecting the most helpful imaging protocols can often lead to incorrect diagnosis of the injury. A consensus on a diagnostic imaging protocol for acute AC joint injuries does not currently exist. Therefore we conducted a systematic review of the literature considering three diagnostic parameters for patients with acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries: 1) Assessment of vertical instability; 2) Assessment of horizontal instability; 3) Benefit of weighted panoramic views.

methodsInternet databases were searched in March 2016 using the terms ("AC joint" OR "acromioclavicular joint") AND (MRI OR MR OR radiograph OR X-ray OR Xray OR ultrasound OR "computer tomography" OR "computed tomography" OR CT). Diagnostic, prospective, retrospective, cohort and cross- sectional studies were included to compare their use of different radiological methods. Case reports, cadaveric studies, and studies concerning chronic AC injuries and clinical outcomes were excluded.

resultsThis search returned 1359 citations of which 1151 were excluded based on title, 116 based on abstract and 75 based on manuscript. 17 studies were included for review and were analyzed for their contributions to the three parameters of interest mentioned above. The inter- and intra-observer reliability for diagnosing vertical instabilities of the clavicle using x-ray alone show a high level of reproducibility while for horizontal instabilities the values were much more variable. In general, digitally measured parameters seem to be more precise and reliable between investigators than visual classification alone. Currently, evidence for the value of weighted views and other additional diagnostic imaging to supplement standard x-rays is controversial.

conclusionTo date there is no consensus on a gold standard for diagnostic measures needed to classify acute AC joint injuries. The inter- and intra-observer reliability for diagnosing vertical instabilities of the clavicle using bilateral projections show a high level of reproducibility while for horizontal instabilities the results are much more inconsistent. There is currently no clear consensus on a protocol for image-based diagnosis and classification of acute AC joint injuries, leading to a lack of confidence in reproducibility and reliability.

Indexed as

Acromioclavicular JointHumansJoint InstabilityMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID29216919
PMCPMC5721483
OpenAlexW2773923038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.