SynthesisEmergency radiology2026
Identifying the diagnostic utility of artificial intelligence for elbow effusion 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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Elbow fractures are often difficult to assess on radiographs, and joint effusions may be the only indication of a fracture. As radiologists may not always be available in the acute care setting, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for effusion detection may be beneficial. This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzes the sensitivity and specificity of AI for elbow effusion detection and compares them to physician radiographic interpretations. We hypothesize there will be no significant differences between the diagnostic utility of AI and physicians. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on five databases (Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science). Included studies reported numbers of true positives, true negatives, false positives, false negatives, the number of radiographs, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was performed in R Studio v.4.5.1 to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), as well as 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity. Results: Four retrospective studies were included in the analysis, encompassing 5790 radiographs. (2–5) AI software had a sensitivity of 92.7% (95% CI: 75.3–98.2%), specificity of 97.8% (95% CI: 84.3–99.7%), AUC of 97.8%, and normalized AUC of 95.8%. There was minimal heterogeneity between the AI studies (I2 = 39.3%). Physicians, including residents and attendings, had a sensitivity of 94.8% (95% CI: 85.5–98.3%), specificity of 96.8% (95% CI: 84.2–99.4%), AUC of 97.9%, and normalized AUC of 94.6%. There was no significant heterogeneity between the physician studies (I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between AI and physicians in sensitivity (p = 0.79) or specificity (p = 0.82). Discussion: No significant differences were observed between the radiologists and the AI software, with both groups yielding high specificity and sensitivity, indicating comparable performance.
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.