ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence in Fracture Diagnosis on Radiographs: Evidence, Pitfalls, and Pathways for Clinical Integration (2020-2025).
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- The diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in detecting foot and ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbot Compared to Orthopedic Trauma Surgeons in Evaluating Indication for Surgery for Isolated Lateral Malleolar Fractures: a Retrospective Study.Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca · 2026Observational
- Fracture Detection on Bone Radiographs: The Impact of an AI Tool on Orthopaedic Night Shifts.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- AI in Musculoskeletal Imaging: An End-to-End Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Fracture Detection in Orthopedic and Trauma Imaging: Where It Works, Where It Fails, and Principles for Safe Clinical Deployment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: Clinical Performance, Limitations, and Translational Readiness-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Deep learning and hybrid architectures for atypical and complex bone fracture diagnosis: a systematic review of performance and clinical validity.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
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
Missed fractures remain one of the most frequent sources of diagnostic errors in emergency departments, often leading to delayed treatment, morbidity, and increased healthcare costs. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning systems, has been increasingly investigated as an adjunct for musculoskeletal imaging. Over the past five years, multiple studies have evaluated the diagnostic performance, clinical utility, and limitations of AI in fracture detection. This article is a narrative synthesis of literature published from 2020 to 2025, focusing on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and high-quality prospective studies addressing AI-assisted fracture diagnosis on radiographs and other imaging modalities. Key themes examined include diagnostic accuracy, anatomical and modality-specific performance, real-world deployment, regulatory approvals, and remaining challenges to integration. The results of the current review showed that decent meta-analyses demonstrated pooled sensitivity and specificity above 90%, showing AI performance comparable to that of radiologists. The strongest results were observed in extremity fractures (wrist, ankle, shoulder), while performance was more variable in ribs and spine. Reader studies confirmed that AI assistance improved radiologists' sensitivity by 6-8% without loss of specificity. Real-world deployments in emergency departments showed modest reductions in reporting discrepancies and patient length of stay. Commercial platforms, such as OsteoDetect and BoneView, received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Conformité Européenne(CE) approvals, and draft guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2024 recommended AI fracture detection in urgent care. However, challenges persist, including dataset bias, limited generalizability, interpretability, and uncertain patient-centered outcomes. Several studies have reported that AI may serve as a reliable adjunct in fracture diagnosis, with diagnostic accuracy approaching that of radiologists and potential improvements in clinical workflows when used as an assistive tool. Nevertheless, safe integration is best supported by regulatory approval (FDA, CE, NICE) and, where appropriate, supplemented by external validation, robust datasets, and transparent reporting to ensure performance across different clinical environments. Future directions include multi-modal AI, adaptive learning, pediatric-focused applications, and strengthened real-world evidence from retrospective outcome evaluations and post-market surveillance.
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.