ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2024
Comparison of diagnostic performance of X‑ray, CT and MRI in patients with surgically confirmed subtle Lisfranc injuries.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Versus Musculoskeletal Radiologists for Foot and Ankle Fracture Detection on Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of three imaging tests: X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for subtle Lisfranc injuries and three anatomical subtype injuries. The non-weight-bearing X-ray, CT and MRI imaging results of patients with subtle Lisfranc injuries from September 2013 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Subtle Lisfranc injuries and three anatomical subtypes (first, second and cuneiform rays) were diagnosed based on the surgical reports. The diagnostic performance of X-ray, CT and MRI was compared. The sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value, negative predictive value, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and κ coefficient were reported. A total of 31 patients were included in the study. The correct diagnosis was made in 48.4% (15/31), 87.1% (27/31) and 96.8% (30/31) of patients by X-ray, CT and MRI, respectively. A total of 54 different anatomical injuries were found intraoperatively in all patients, with MRI and CT having high agreement (Sn, 72.2 and 87.0%; κ, 0.69 and 0.78, respectively) and X-ray having a low agreement (Sn, 29.6%; κ, 0.26) with the surgical findings. Regarding the first-ray injuries, CT had the highest Sn (76.9%), Sp (100%) and AUC (0.885) in diagnosing subtle Lisfranc injuries. MRI showed the best Sn (88.5 and 93.3%, respectively) and AUC (0.942 and 0.904, respectively) in both second and cuneiform rays. In conclusion, non-weight-bearing X-rays had poor diagnostic accuracy for subtle Lisfranc injuries and their subtypes. CT was superior to X-rays and MRI in diagnosing first-ray injuries. Although not significantly different from CT in terms of overall diagnosis, MRI was superior to X-ray and CT in diagnosing second and cuneiform-ray injuries.
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.