SynthesisEmergency radiology2026
Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence for identification of cervical spine fractures: 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how effectively artificial intelligence (AI) models can diagnose cervical spine fractures.
methodsA systematic search from inception to July 2025 in databases of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to retrieve studies applying AI models for diagnosis of cervical spine fractures. Deduplication, study screening, and full-text evaluations were performed using EndNote by two independent authors. Statistical analyses were conducted using MIDAS and Metaprop packages in Stata and Meta-Disc software.
resultsSixteen studies reporting 69 AI models were analyzed. The estimated sensitivity was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94) and specificity was found to be 0.97 (95% CI, 0.97-0.97). The combined positive and negative likelihood ratios were 26.34 (95% CI, 15.93-43.56) and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.03-0.16), respectively. The overall accuracy was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), with summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) suggesting of 0.99 area under curve.
conclusionOur meta-analysis showed that AI models demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy (0.96) for the early identification of cervical spine fractures. While our analysis suggests that AI models may achieve similar diagnostic performance using either CT or radiography, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of X-ray studies and the high degree of heterogeneity. Given the scarcity of independent peer-reviewed validation studies and the variability in performance across AI models and study settings, the generalizability of these findings across different patient populations and clinical environments remains uncertain. Further research is required to confirm these results and account for study design variations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42067706What 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.