ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Two Different Methods to Evaluate Ankle Syndesmosis on Lateral Ankle Radiographs.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 0 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Ankle sprains and fractures rank among the most commonly occurring musculoskeletal injuries and hold significant relevance in current medical practice. Accurate information regarding these injuries is crucial for their effective treatment. This study aimed to explore the viability of utilizing ankle lateral radiographs to evaluate syndesmosis in both emergency settings and operating theatres. Methods This randomized retrospective clinical study involved the analysis of 150 ankle lateral radiographs (54 males and 96 females) from patients who presented at our emergency department with suspected ankle injuries. Two authors jointly examined these radiographs and reached a consensus. The anterior tibiofibular (ATF) ratio and anterior-posterior tibiofibular (APTF) ratio were computed. Patients requiring syndesmotic fixation were classified as having experienced a genuine syndesmotic injury. Participants were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group I (normal group) without fractures and Group II (abnormal group) with fractures. Comprehensive patient data, including medical history and clinical examinations, were recorded. Results Gender distribution within the studied population consisted of 54.67% males (n=41) and 45.33% females (n=34) in the abnormal group, while the normal group comprised 37.33% males (n=28) and 62.67% females (n=47). Both APTFR and ATFR methods were found to be inconclusive and unreliable for syndesmosis assessment in ankles. The sensitivity of APTFR stood at 21.33%, with a specificity of 86.67%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 61.5%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 52.4%. Meanwhile, the sensitivity of ATFR was 32%, with a specificity of 80%, a PPV of 61.5%, and an NPV of 54.1%. Conclusions Both techniques demonstrated low sensitivity when ankle fractures were present, indicating their unsuitability for routine clinical diagnosis of syndesmotic disruption via lateral ankle radiographs.
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.