SynthesisEmergency radiology2026
Ultra-low-dose CT in extremity fracture detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Emergency radiology, 2026. 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.
- Radiation exposure for planning deformity corrections with hexapods: comparison of conventional X-ray, standard CT, and ultra-low-dose CT.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility of AI-Denoised Ultra-Low-Dose CT for Detection of Acute Pelvic and Hip Fractures: A Pilot Multi-Reader Study.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the diagnostic accuracy and radiation doses of ultra-low-dose CT (ULD-CT) versus standard-dose CT (SD-CT) in patients with suspected limb joint fractures.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Five databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) were screened for studies directly comparing ULD-CT to SD-CT diagnostic accuracy for limb joint fractures. Studies used 320-row detector CT scanners with ULD-CT protocols (80 kVp, 4-52 mAs) versus conventional protocols (120 kVp, 50-150 mAs). Bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivity and specificity estimates. Dose-length product (DLP) reductions were compared directly.
resultsFour prospective studies comprising 674 patients met inclusion criteria. ULD-CT demonstrated pooled sensitivity of 97.6% and specificity of 99.6% (AUC 99.0%), while SD-CT showed sensitivity of 99.4% and specificity of 99.1% (AUC 98.9%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in sensitivity (p = 0.300) or specificity (p = 0.486). ULD-CT achieved radiation dose reductions of 87-99% across all anatomical regions.
conclusionsULD-CT offers significant radiation dose reduction with diagnostic accuracy comparable to SD-CT for limb joint fracture detection. Further multicenter studies are warranted to consolidate evidence across anatomical regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41291353What 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.