SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026
Artificial intelligence software to help detect fractures on X-rays in urgent care: An Early Value Assessment.
Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence software to help detect fractures on X-rays in urgent care: An Early Value Assessment.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- AI-based Hip Fracture Classification from Pelvic X-ray Images Using a Hybrid PEFT-ViT and XGBoost Model.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Paediatric and Adolescent Fracture Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- The role of procurement frameworks in responsible AI innovation in the National Health Service: a multi-stakeholder perspective.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence algorithms have been developed to support clinicians in diagnosing fractures, with the intention to improve the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians reviewing X-rays. The purpose of this rapid early value assessment was to identify the existing evidence base for the technology and to assess whether there was a prima facie case for the technology to represent positive outcomes for patients and a value-for-money investment for people in the National Health Service. Methods: This early value assessment assessed the potential value of the use of artificial intelligence to aid clinician diagnosis of fractures in emergency care settings as compared to clinician-diagnosis alone. A rapid evidence review was conducted followed by 'light touch' early economic modelling to explore whether a plausible case could be made for cost-effectiveness at the prices charged by the companies. Evidence searches were conducted in June and July 2024 to identify clinical, diagnostic and service outcomes associated with the technology. A simple decision model incorporating prevalence, sensitivity, specificity and cost per scan for each of the technologies was developed to evaluate plausible cost-effectiveness for detecting ankle and foot, wrist and hand, and hip fractures, selected based on the availability of evidence and their downstream costs and consequences. Results: Sixteen studies identified evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the technology. None of the included studies were conducted in the United Kingdom and all were associated with limitations. While the studies were not considered to be able to provide reliable estimates of diagnostic accuracy, there was a trend for the technology to improve sensitivity for detecting fractures. The technology had no discernible impact on the rate of false-positive diagnoses. Overall, most of the evaluated technologies were associated with a positive incremental net health benefit at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Due to data limitations, it was not possible to compare technologies against each other. The results were mostly robust to scenario analyses. Discussion: The evidence base for the technology is currently limited to studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy and it is unclear whether increases in fracture detection would translate into meaningful benefits for patients and services. While there are some fractures that, if missed, can result in significant harm to patients, it is plausible that the technology would improve diagnosis of more subtle fractures that may not require a change in management. Use of the technology would not eradicate the risk of missed fractures, meaning that health services would need to continue to take precautions to avoid the risk of a missed fracture in clinical practice. A simple decision tree analysis suggested that the technology was plausibly cost-effective at conventional National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds. Limitations: There are significant limitations in the available evidence leading to uncertainties about the diagnostic accuracy of the technology within NHS settings. Due to the pragmatic nature of the early value assessment and the available evidence base, the economic analysis included many gross assumptions and was unable to produce a definitive estimate of cost-effectiveness. Future work: The appraisal resulted in a number of research recommendations for evaluating the technology further. More detailed modelling in a full formal diagnostic assessment review is required to consider the longer-term costs and consequences of false negatives and positives, and how they are likely to impact the estimates of cost-effectiveness. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42024574393. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR136024) and is published in full in
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.