Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37286662›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2023

Imaging of pelvic ring fractures in older adults and its clinical implications-a systematic review.

Anna H M Mennen, Alida S Blokland, Mario Maas, Daphne van Embden

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Comment on: imaging of pelvic ring fractures in older adults and its clinical implications-a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna H M MennenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.h.mennen@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0436-6133
Alida S BloklandDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4376-922X
Mario MaasAmsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6785-5167
Daphne van EmbdenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8615-0864
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying the full scope of pelvic fracture patterns in older adults has gained clinical importance since the last decennium. CT is recommended as the golden standard; however, MRI has even greater diagnostic accuracy. Dual energy computed tomography (DECT) is a new and promising imaging technique, but the diagnostic accuracy in the context of pelvic fragility fractures (FFPs) has not been widely established. The aim was to provide insight into the diagnostic accuracy of different imaging techniques and the relevance for clinical practice. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed database. All studies that reported on CT, MRI or DECT imaging techniques in older adults who suffered a pelvic fracture were reviewed and, if relevant, included. Eight articles were included. In up to 54% of the patients, additional fractures were found on MRI compared to CT, and in up to 57% of the patients on DECT. The sensitivity of DECT for posterior pelvic fracture detection was similar to MRI. All patients without fractures on CT appeared to have posterior fractures on MRI. After additional MRI, 40% of the patients had a change of classification. DECT and MRI showed very similar results in terms of diagnostic accuracy. Over a third of all patients appear to have a more severe fracture classification after MRI, the majority changing to Rommens type 4. However, in only a few patients who changed of fracture classification, a change of therapy was advised. This review suggests that MRI and DECT scans are superior in diagnosing FFPs.

Indexed as

Fractures, BonePelvic BonesAgedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadionuclide ImagingRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyDual energy computed tomographyMagnetic resonance imagingOlder adultsPelvic fragility fracturePelvic ring fractures

Identifiers

PMID37286662
PMCPMC10427539
OpenAlexW4379743030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.