ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2020
Emphasizing the Diagnostic Value of Digital Tomosynthesis in Detecting Hip Fractures.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our institution recently implemented the use of digital tomosynthesis (DTS) to workup emergency room patients with suspected hip fractures after initial negative or indeterminate radiographs. Our purpose is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of DTS for hip fracture detection. We performed a retrospective review of all DTS studies over a 17-month period (July 2017 to November 2018). The results of the radiographs and DTS were recorded as either positive or negative for fracture based on the radiology report. Our reference standard for a fracture was either confirmation on subsequent CT or MRI from the same visit or documentation of clinical findings supportive of a fracture in the patient's electronic medical record. For patients with negative DTS who did not undergo subsequent cross-sectional imaging, a missed fracture was excluded if they did not return within 30 days with a confirmed fracture. Among 91 patients, there were 34 confirmed fractures-sites including, 7 femoral necks, 10 pubic rami, and 7 greater trochanters. DTS was positive for fracture in 29 patients; 28 of these fractures were true positives, 6 confirmed on cross-sectional imaging, and 22 confirmed clinically. One false positive was observed in a patient with no clinical evidence of a fracture. Six fractures were not detected by tomosynthesis but confirmed on CT/MRI. The sensitivity and specificity of DTS are 82% and 98%, respectively, compared to that of radiographs alone at 47% and 96%, respectively. DTS is a promising adjunct to radiographs for hip fracture detection in an emergency department.
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.