SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-based diagnosis for facial fractures, advantages compared with conventional imaging diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Evaluation of an AI-based segmentation model for mandibular fracture segmentation on CBCT using volumetric and 2D slice-based validation approaches.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Bone Fracture Detection: A Review of Evidence, Limitations, and Clinical Integration.Cureus · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, the application of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in artificial intelligence (AI) for medical imaging diagnosis has emerged as a highly promising tool. In particular, AI-assisted diagnosis holds significant potential for orthopedic and emergency department physicians by improving diagnostic efficiency and enhancing the overall patient experience. This systematic review and meta-analysis has the objective of assessing the application of AI in diagnosing facial fractures and evaluating its diagnostic performance.
methodsThis study adhered to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and PRISMA-Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to identify original articles published up to December 2024. The risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. The results were analyzed using a Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curve.
resultsA total of 16 studies were included in the analysis, with contingency tables extracted from 11 of them. The pooled sensitivity was 0.889 (95% CI: 0.844-0.922), and the pooled specificity was 0.888 (95% CI: 0.834-0.926). The area under the Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.911. In the subgroup analysis of nasal and mandibular fractures, the pooled sensitivity for nasal fractures was 0.851 (95% CI: 0.806-0.887), and the pooled specificity was 0.883 (95% CI: 0.862-0.902). For mandibular fractures, the pooled sensitivity was 0.905 (95% CI: 0.836-0.947), and the pooled specificity was 0.895 (95% CI: 0.824-0.940).
conclusionsAI can be developed as an auxiliary tool to assist clinicians in diagnosing facial fractures. The results demonstrate high overall sensitivity and specificity, along with a robust performance reflected by the high area under the SROC curve. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: This study has been prospectively registered on Prospero, ID:CRD42024618650, Creat Date:10 Dec 2024. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024618650 .
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.