Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35504849›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical radiation sciences2022

Which test is the best? An updated literature review of imaging modalities for acute ankle diastasis injuries.

Nico Ng, James Randolph Onggo, Mithun Nambiar, Julian Tam Maingard, David Ng, Gaurav Gupta, Dee Nandurkar, Sina Babazadeh, Harvinder Bedi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nico NgMonash Imaging, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1235-8811
James Randolph OnggoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Box Hill Hospital, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Mithun NambiarMonash Imaging, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Julian Tam MaingardMonash Imaging, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
David NgMonash Imaging, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4069-4460
Gaurav GuptaMonash Imaging, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Dee NandurkarMonash Imaging, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Sina BabazadehDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Box Hill Hospital, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Harvinder BediDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Box Hill Hospital, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Monash Health · AUBox Hill Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ankle diastasis injuries, or ankle syndesmotic injuries, are common among athletes who usually experience a traumatic injury to the ankle. Long-term complications are avoidable when these injuries are diagnosed promptly and accurately treated. Whilst ankle arthroscopy remains the gold standard diagnostic modality for ankle diastasis injuries, imaging modalities are still widely utilised due to the treatment having greater accessibility, being less invasive and the most cost effective. There are various imaging modalities used to diagnose diastasis injuries, varying in levels of specificity and sensitivity. These observation methods include; X-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ankle arthroscopy. This article uncovers common criteria and parameters to diagnose diastasis injuries through the implementation of different imaging modalities. The conclusions addressed within this article are deduced from a total of 338 articles being screened with only 43 articles being selected for the purposes of this examination. Across most articles, it was concluded that that plain X-ray should be used in the first instance due to its wide availability, quick processing time, and low cost. CT is the next recommended investigation due to its increased sensitivity and specificity, ability to show the positional relationship of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis, and reliability in detecting minor diastasis injuries. MRI is recommended when ankle diastasis injuries are suspected, but not diagnosed on previous imaging modalities. It has the highest sensitivity and specificity compared to X-ray and CT.

Indexed as

Ankle InjuriesAnkleAnkle JointArthroscopyHumansReproducibility of ResultsAnkle arthroscopyankle diastasis injurycomputed tomographyCTimaging modalitymagnetic resonance imagingMRIX-ray

Identifiers

PMID35504849
PMCPMC9442321
OpenAlexW4225392226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.