ArticleSkeletal radiology2020
Comparison of 3D X-ray tomography with computed tomography in patients with distal extremity fractures.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occult fractures of the tibial plateau: 3D augmented X-ray pilot study.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Impact of calcium suppression imaging on hand and wrist fracture detection in spectral CT: a comparison with X-ray and CT.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Cone beam CT in the imaging of musculoskeletal trauma: a scoping review.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- Clinical value of low-dose three-dimensional reconstruction by multi-slice spiral computed tomography and by traditional X-ray in the diagnosis of distal radius epiphyseal injury in children.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Detecting Bone Marrow Edema of the Extremities on Spectral Computed Tomography Using a Three-Material Decomposition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Influence of Sagittal Angle of Posterior Malleolus Fracture on Ankle Joint Stability: A Retrospective Study of 120 Cases.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare fracture detection, image quality, and radiation dose in patients with distal extremity fractures using 3D tomography and computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND
methodsIRB approval was obtained including informed consent for this prospective study from June to December 2016. Patients diagnosed with an acute fracture at CT were consecutively scanned on the same day using 3D tomography. Anatomical location (effected bone and location within the bone) and morphological characteristics of fractures (avulsion, articular involvement, mono- vs. multifragmented, displacement), visibility of bone/soft tissue structures, and image quality were assessed independently by two blinded readers on a 5-point Likert scale. Dose-length-product (DLP; mGy*cm) was compared between both modalities. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed rank test (P < 0.05), Student's t test (P < 0.05), and Cohen's kappa (κ) for interreader reliability were calculated.
resultsIn 46 patients (28 males; 18 females; mean age, 53 ± 20 years) with 28 hand/wrist and 18 foot/ankle examinations, 86 out of 92 fractures were diagnosed with 3D tomography compared with CT. No false-positive finding occurred at 3D tomography. The six missed fractures on 3D tomography were five avulsion fractures of the carpals/metacarpals or tarsals/metatarsals, respectively, and one nondisplaced fracture of the capitate. Interreader agreement of anatomical location and morphological characteristics was substantial to almost perfect for upper (κ = 0.80-0.96) and lower (κ = 0.70-0.97) extremity fractures. Visibility of bone and soft tissue structures and image quality were slightly inferior using 3D tomography compared with CT (upper extremity P < 0.001-0.038 and lower extremity P < 0.001-0.035). DLP of a comparable scan coverage was significantly lower for 3D tomography (P < 0.001) for both upper (3D mean, 19.4 ± 5.9 mGy*cm; estimated CT mean, 336.5 ± 52.2 mGy*cm) and lower extremities (3D mean, 24.1 ± 11.1 mGy*cm; estimated CT mean, 182.9 ± 6.5 mGy*cm). Even the highest DLP with 3D tomography was < 30% of the mean estimated CT dose of a comparable area of coverage.
conclusionFracture assessment of peripheral extremities is reliable utilizing a low-dose 3D tomography X-ray system, with slightly reduced image quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.