SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2025
Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting nerve injury in brachial plexus birth injury.
Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnetic resonance imaging for detecting root avulsions in brachial plexus birth injuries.The Journal of hand surgery, European volume · 2026Article
- Clinical Anatomy and Diagnostic Challenges in Peripheral Nerve Trauma for the Forensic Physician.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for diagnosing nerve injury in brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI).
methodsElectronic databases were searched from inception to February 15, 2023 for studies reporting the accuracy of MRI (index test) compared to surgical exploration (reference standard) in detecting the target conditions of: root avulsion, any nerve abnormality, and pseudomeningocele (as a marker of root avulsion) in children with BPBI. Meta-analysis using a bivariate model was performed where data allowed.
resultsEight studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 116 children with BPBI were included. All included studies were at risk of bias. The mean sensitivity and mean specificity of MRI for detecting root avulsion was 68% (95% CI: 55%, 79%) and 89% (95% CI: 78%, 95%), respectively. Pseudomeningocele was not a reliable marker of avulsion. Data were too sparse to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for any nerve abnormality.
conclusionsAt present, surgical exploration should remain as the diagnostic modality of choice for BPBI due to the modest diagnostic accuracy of MRI in detecting root avulsion. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI needs to be close to 100% as the results may determine whether a child undergoes invasive surgery. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Previous research regarding MRI in detecting BPBI is highly variable and prior to our study the overall diagnostic accuracy was unclear. Through conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, we were able to reliably determine the overall sensitivity and specificity of MRI for detecting root avulsion.
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.