SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Artificial intelligence in virtual fracture clinics: a systematic review of imaging and clinical-text tools.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- Review
- 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
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
backgroundVirtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are a well-established component of acute orthopedic management pathways. Artificial intelligence (AI) healthcare tools are increasingly sophisticated and have the potential to disrupt current practices. The aim of this review was to determine the opportunities, performance and readiness of AI systems that integrate clinical-text and imaging data for the triage or management of patients in VFCs.
methodsA search of MEDLINE and Embase was performed between January 2010 and July 2025. The review included primary research studies investigating AI for fracture detection via X-rays and natural language processing (NLP) models for clinical documentation. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity, stratified by anatomical region and developer type (commercial vs. researcher-developed).
resultsWe included 54 studies: 52 imaging/X-ray studies and 2 NLP/clinical-text studies. Among the imaging studies, 13 evaluated commercial tools, and 39 evaluated researcher-developed models. There were 2 NLP models, both of which interpreted radiology reports rather than text summaries of clinical assessments. No studies that included the use of NLP models in acute orthopedic care could be found. A meta-analysis of commercial tools (n = 11) demonstrated a pooled sensitivity across both multiregional "Limb" tools of 92.58% (95% CI 90.61-94.17%) and anatomy-specific "Wrist" tools of 89.95% (95% CI 72.18-96.86%). Wrist-specific commercial tools demonstrated higher specificity (96.80%; 95% CI 90.12-99.01%) compared to general limb tools (89.69%; 95% CI 84.02-93.51%), suggesting that anatomical targeting may reduce the number of false positives. Researcher-developed models (n = 32) often reported superior metrics for sensitivity compared to the sensitivity of commercial tools.
conclusionsVFCs require the integration of information from imaging and patient records. Multiple image interpretation tools are available with high performance in fracture identification. The development and integration of NLP tools to interpret clinical documentation from emergency departments and urgent care centers are necessary for AI-VFC.
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.