Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41922896›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2026

Evaluating the diagnostic performance of 3D radiographs in emergency department extremity imaging: an early comparative study.

Ghazaleh Safazadeh, Matthew T Simpson, Ragheed Al-Dulaimi, Megan K Mills, Frederic Noo, Maryam Soltanolkotabi

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ghazaleh SafazadehDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, 30 Mario Capecchi Dr, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. Ghazaleh.Safazadeh@hci.utah.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3968-1603
Matthew T SimpsonDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, 30 Mario Capecchi Dr, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5974-130X
Ragheed Al-DulaimiDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, 30 Mario Capecchi Dr, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2320-8299
Megan K MillsDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, 30 Mario Capecchi Dr, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6808-8411
Frederic NooUtah Center for Advanced Imaging Research, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5417-3439
Maryam SoltanolkotabiDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, 30 Mario Capecchi Dr, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4194-1910

Funding

Siemens Medical Solutions USA Siemens Medical Solutions USA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare diagnostic performance of novel three-dimensional advanced reconstruction (3D AR) with conventional radiography (CR) in detecting extremity fractures, and to assess its multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) image quality.

methodsThis prospective, single-center study included 88 extremity exams from 73 adult emergency department (ED) patients who underwent both CR and 3D AR. Two blinded radiologists independently reviewed all exams, with cross-sectional/follow-up imaging as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance metrics and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were calculated. MPR image quality was graded on a 5-point Likert scale. Inter-reader reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

resultsFractures were confirmed in 30 of 88 exams (34%). CR detected 14 (sensitivity: 46.7%), while 3D AR identified all 30 (sensitivity: 100%). Specificity was high for both modalities: 96.6% for CR, 98.3% for 3D AR. ROC analysis demonstrated significantly superior performance for 3D AR (area under curve, 0.99 vs. 0.71, p<.001). MPR quality was adequate or higher than needed in 85% of cases, with an excellent ICC of 0.88.

conclusion3D AR significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for extremity fractures compared to CR while maintaining high image quality. Its integration into ED workflows may reduce the need for additional imaging and expedite clinical decision-making. These findings support 3D AR as a valuable tool in the evaluation of acute extremity trauma.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalFractures, BoneImaging, Three-DimensionalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity3DCone-beam CTConventional radiographyDiagnostic accuracyEmergency department imagingExtremity fracturesFracture detectionMusculoskeletal trauma

Identifiers

PMID41922896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.