Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35286468›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2022

Sensitivity and specificity of post-mortem computed tomography in skull fracture detection-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mikkel Jon Henningsen, Sara Tangmose Larsen, Christina Jacobsen, Chiara Villa

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of legal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mikkel Jon HenningsenDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Section of Forensic Pathology, University of Copenhagen, Frederik V's vej 11, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. mikkel.henningsen@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4331-6094
Sara Tangmose LarsenDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Section of Forensic Pathology, University of Copenhagen, Frederik V's vej 11, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christina JacobsenDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Section of Forensic Pathology, University of Copenhagen, Frederik V's vej 11, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Chiara VillaDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Section of Forensic Pathology, University of Copenhagen, Frederik V's vej 11, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-mortem computed tomography (PMCT) has been increasingly used as routine examination in forensic pathology. No recent review of the growing number of papers on the ability of PMCT to detect skull fracture exists, and original papers report sensitivities from 0.85 to 1.00. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42021233264) aims to provide a meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of PMCT in skull fracture detection. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase for papers published between January 2000 and August 2021 reporting raw numbers, sensitivity and specificity or Abbreviated Injury Score for PMCT compared to autopsy. Papers without both PMCT and autopsy, no separate reporting of the neuro-cranium, exclusively on children, sharp trauma, gunshot or natural death as well as case reports and reviews were excluded. Two authors independently performed inclusion, bias assessment and data extraction. QUADAS-2 was used for bias assessment and a random effects models used for meta-analysis. From 4.284 hits, 18 studies were eligible and 13 included in the meta-analysis for a total of 1538 cases. All deceased were scanned on multi-slice scanners with comparable parameters. Images were evaluated by radiologists or pathologists. Intra- and inter-observer analyses were rarely reported. In summary, sensitivity of PMCT for detection of fractures in the skull base was 0.87 [0.80; 0.92] with specificity 0.96 [0.90; 0.98], and sensitivity for the vault was 0.89 [0.80; 0.94] with specificity 0.96 [0.91; 0.98]. The mixed samples are a limitation of the review.

Indexed as

Skull FracturesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAutopsyChildForensic PathologyHumansSensitivity and SpecificityAutopsyFracture detectionMeta-analysisPMCTReviewSkull

Identifiers

PMID35286468
OpenAlexW4220731732

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.