ArticleLa Radiologia medica2024
The missed chapter on midfoot: Chopart injuries.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMidtarsal injuries are often missed at initial presentation which may lead to long-term complications. Nonetheless, radiographs (XR) are used as a primary imaging method. The place of cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) remains unclear in the management of midfoot injuries. The aim of this study was to update imaging findings on traumatic ankle and foot injuries (TAAFI) with CBCT and to assess the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of XR compared to CBCT for midfoot injuries detections. MATERIAL AND
methodsAll CBCT studies performed due to (TAAFI) that had previous XR were collected for a period of 5 years. They were retrospectively anonymized and analyzed by a radiologist. A second blinded study of XR was made by a second radiologist as a control.
resultsA total of 754 cases were included. Lisfranc and Chopart injuries were detected in 153 (20.2%) and 154 (20.4%) patients, respectively. Lisfranc and Chopart's lesions combined together were seen in 33 cases (10.7%). A blinded retrospective analysis of XR compared to CBCT shows a sensitivity of 64.9% (56.8-72.4%; 95% CI), a specificity of 95.0% (92.9-96.6%; 95% CI) and an accuracy of 88.9% (86.4-91.0%; 95% CI) for Chopart's injuries. Regarding Lisfranc, the sensitivity was 62.1% (53.9-69.8%; 95% CI), specificity 99.0% (97.8-99.6%; 95% CI) and accuracy 91.5% (89.3-93.4%; 95% CI).
conclusionThis cohort study highlights the missed injuries of Chopart on XR and the low association with Lisfranc avulsions. The use of CBCT helps in detecting and assessing midfoot injury.
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.