ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2020
Determining diagnosis of scaphoid healing: Comparison of cone beam CT and X-ray after six weeks of immobilization.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05574582 (Arthroscopic Versus Open Cancellous Bone Grafting for Scaphoid Delayed/Non-union in Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Arthroscopic Versus Open Cancellous Bone Grafting for Scaphoid Delayed/Non-union in Adults: Study Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Percutaneous Neutralization Screw with Arthroscopic Bone Grafting for Scaphoid Nonunion.Journal of wrist surgery · 2025Article
- Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability for the Computed Tomography Scan Assessment of Union After Surgery for Scaphoid Fractures and Nonunion.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- The Role of Botulinum Neurotoxin A in the Conservative Treatment of Fractures: An Experimental Study on Rats.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2024Article
- Article
- Ultra-low dose CT for scaphoid fracture detection-a simulational approach to quantify the capability of radiation exposure reduction without diagnostic limitation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the accuracy and reliability of using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to X-ray six weeks after injury for predicting scaphoid union. MATERIALS AND
methodsOverall; 52 patients with scaphoid fractures between April 2018 and March 2019 were prospectively included in this study. The mean age was 34.52 (13-88) years, and the gender ratio male/female 43/9. Of the fractures, 26 had occurred on the right side, and 26 on the left side. In total, 28 % of patients were manual workers. All patients underwent X-ray and CBCT six weeks after injury. Four readers, two radiologists, and two hand surgeons analyzed the findings using double-blinded X-ray and CBCT and categorized fractures as consolidated based on a 50 % visibility threshold concerning trabecular bridges. Proximal pole sclerosis, communition, cyst formation, and humpback deformity were similarly analyzed for all cases. Agreement between readers was calculated using Kappa, and sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy using RStudio software. The gold standard was the radiologic and clinical follow-up for all patients at two months.
resultsInter-reader agreement between the four readers was moderate concerning X-ray (0.543) but substantial concerning CBCT (0.641). It was almost perfect between seniors regarding CBCT (Kappa = 0.862). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.75-0.78, 0.4, and 0.61-0.64, respectively, for two readers regarding CBCT. The X-ray values were 0.65-0.71, 0.35-0.4, and 0.53-0.59, respectively.
conclusionCBCT proves more accurate and reliable than X-ray for diagnosing scaphoid union at an early follow-up and prevents longer immobilization and interruption of activity or work.
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.