ArticleCureus2025
Manual Versus Hammer Percussion Frequency-Domain Acoustic Screening for Hip Fracture: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Delayed diagnosis of hip fracture (HF), one of the most common fractures encountered in clinical practice, is associated with serious complications or adverse outcomes. However, these fractures are frequently missed on radiography. Auscultatory percussion, a simple screening method that compares percussion sounds between lower limbs using a stethoscope, has limitations owing to its subjective evaluation, which can lead to unstable diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, this study aimed to verify whether objective frequency analysis of percussion sounds could overcome this issue to achieve high-accuracy diagnosis. We further compared the diagnostic performance of manual percussion versus percussion with a tendon hammer. Materials and methods This case-control study enrolled 40 patients with HFs (fracture group) and 20 hospitalized patients without fractures (control group). All patients underwent percussion of the pubic symphysis using manual percussion and a tendon hammer, and sounds were recorded from both patellae. The absolute value of the sound pressure difference between the sides was calculated across 512 frequency bands (0-24,000 Hz). Diagnostic performance was evaluated using group comparisons (Mann-Whitney U test), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with bootstrap internal validation, decision curve analysis (DCA), and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Manual percussion demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance at the 2718.75-Hz band, with an optimism-corrected area under the curve (AUC) of 0.923 (95% confidence interval: 0.845-0.979). At a cutoff value of 1.28 dB, the sensitivity and specificity were 97.5% and 69.8%, respectively, yielding an extremely low negative likelihood ratio of 0.04. Hammer percussion also showed good performance in the 421.88-Hz band (AUC: 0.861), although the difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods was not statistically significant. DCA confirmed the clinical utility of both methods. In multivariate analysis, the sound pressure difference for both methods was a significant independent predictor of fracture. Furthermore, exploratory subgroup analysis suggested the diagnostic performance of manual percussion was stable across key patient subgroups. Conclusion These results indicate that objective frequency-domain analysis of percussion sounds, particularly with manual percussion, represents a simple and effective screening tool for ruling out HFs, given its high sensitivity and excellent negative likelihood ratio. This study revealed new scientific insight that the diagnostically effective frequency band depends on the physical properties of percussion. These findings overcome the challenges of conventional subjective diagnostic methods and could contribute to the future development of accessible, objective, and non-invasive fracture diagnosis technologies.
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.