ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2022
Prospective Assessment of Clinical Tests Used to Evaluate Tibial Stress Fracture.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2022. 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, 3 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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tibial stress fracture (SFx) is the most common SFx of the lower extremity. Presently, diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination techniques for tibial SFx remains suboptimal. Purpose: To assess the diagnostic effectiveness of 5 clinical tests for tibial SFx individually versus a test item cluster. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 50 patients with tibial pain (17 with bilateral symptoms) were assessed with 5 clinical examination tests (tibial fulcrum test, focal tenderness to palpation, heel percussion test, therapeutic ultrasound test, and 128-Hz tuning fork test) before they underwent diagnostic imaging (radionuclide bone scan). The application of the clinical tests was counterbalanced to minimize the likelihood of carryover effects. Patients provided a pain rating immediately before and after the application of each clinical test. Results: The prevalence of tibial SFx among the study participants was 52.2%. High levels of specificity were produced by the therapeutic ultrasound test (93.8%), tuning fork test (90.6%), and percussion test (90.6%). The fulcrum test had moderate to high specificity (84.4%). All tests demonstrated low levels of sensitivity, with the highest levels found for focal tenderness to palpation (48.6%) and fulcrum (45.7%). The fulcrum test provided the highest positive likelihood ratio (2.93), followed by the therapeutic ultrasound test (2.30). The fulcrum test had the lowest negative likelihood ratio (0.64), with the focal tenderness to palpation and tuning fork tests having negative likelihood ratios >1.0. Combinations of these clinical tests did not improve the prediction of tibial SFx above that observed among the individual tests. Conclusion: The clinical tests evaluated were generally highly specific, but all had low sensitivity. The fulcrum test provided the highest level of diagnostic accuracy; however, it was inadequate for definitive clinical management. Combining tests did not improve the diagnostic accuracy of tibial SFx.
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.