ArticleEFORT open reviews2024
Artificial intelligence in diagnosing upper limb musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence models for temporomandibular joint anomalies on MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Pooled it
- Machine and deep learning models for ligament injury recognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging and novel diagnostic techniques.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
- Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Wrist Joint Injury Diagnosis.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in the interpretation of upper extremity trauma radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
- Advancements in Machine Learning for Precision Diagnostics and Surgical Interventions in Interconnected Musculoskeletal and Visual Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Integration of Artificial Intelligence for Diagnostic Methods in Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Can Artificial Intelligence Reliably and Accurately Measure Lower Limb Alignment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology has revolutionized diagnostics, optimizing precision and decision-making. Specifically in musculoskeletal imaging, AI tools can improve accuracy for upper extremity pathologies. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of AI models in detecting musculoskeletal pathologies of the upper extremity using different imaging modalities. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted, involving searches on MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and SciELO. The quality of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Diagnostic accuracy measures including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR), area under the curve (AUC), and summary receiver operating characteristic were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were also included. All statistical analyses and plots were performed using the R software package. Results: Thirteen models from ten articles were analyzed. The sensitivity and specificity of the AI models to detect musculoskeletal conditions in the upper extremity were 0.926 (95% CI: 0.900; 0.945) and 0.908 (95% CI: 0.810; 0.958). The PLR, NLR, lnDOR, and the AUC estimates were found to be 19.18 (95% CI: 8.90; 29.34), 0.11 (95% CI: 0.18; 0.46), 4.62 (95% CI: 4.02; 5.22) with a (P < 0.001), and 95%, respectively. Conclusion: The AI models exhibited strong univariate and bivariate performance in detecting both positive and negative cases within the analyzed dataset of musculoskeletal pathologies in the upper extremity.
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.