ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Study of Ultrasonography and Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Nasal Bone Fractures.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography and computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures (NBFs) and to assess their clinical utility in the context of current evidence-based recommendations. METHODOLOGY: This prospective analytical study was conducted in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology between January 2021 and December 2022, encompassing 126 patients with clinically diagnosed NBFs who provided informed written consent. Ultrasonographic and CT imaging were used to detect and characterize fractures. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of ultrasonography and CT in identifying NBFs were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsAmong 126 patients (mean age: 38.4 years; 90.5% male), clinical examination identified NBFs in all cases. Ultrasonography detected 121 fractures (accuracy: 96.0%), while CT detected 125 fractures (accuracy: 99.2%). Sensitivity of ultrasonography was 88.57% (95% CI: 83.2-92.5%) compared to the CT sensitivity of 97.3% (95% CI: 94.8-98.9%). Both modalities demonstrated 100% specificity. McNemar's test demonstrated a statistically significant difference in sensitivity between CT and ultrasonography (p = 0.008). CT showed superior sensitivity in detecting undisplaced fractures (35 vs. 31 cases, p = 0.047), with no significant difference for displaced or comminuted fractures (p > 0.05).
conclusionWhile CT demonstrates superior sensitivity, particularly for undisplaced NBFs, ultrasonography offers a valuable non-ionizing alternative for initial fracture assessment in appropriate clinical contexts. Both modalities demonstrated high sensitivity for displaced fractures. However, the choice of imaging should balance the superior accuracy of CT against the safety and accessibility of USG, with awareness of operator dependency. Further prospective studies with multi-center participation and varied operator experience levels are warranted to determine optimal imaging strategies.
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.