ArticleThe ultrasound journal2026
Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in fracture detection with ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone fractures are common in acute care, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an emerging diagnostic tool that can be complementary to or even in some cases an alternative to X-ray imaging. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) model incorporation in diagnostic interpretations, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of deep learning models for detecting bone fractures on ultrasound images, using radiographic imaging with expert interpretation as the reference standard.
methodsComprehensive literature searches were conducted from inception to 15 August 2025, in databases including MEDLINE (Ovid interface), Embase (Ovid interface), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost interface), Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We included studies evaluating deep learning models applied to ultrasound images or sweeps for fracture classification. The included studies predominantly evaluated pediatric cohorts presenting to emergency departments with suspected upper extremity fractures. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model on the logit scale, and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was constructed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
resultsA total of 580 papers were identified in the preliminary literature search, and 333 studies were screened after duplicate removal. Screening 27 full-text articles resulted in eight studies that were included in the review. Across 21 reported model evaluations from five studies with extractable diagnostic data, pooled sensitivity was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69-0.83) and pooled specificity was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.94), with an overall sROC AUC of 0.91. Patient-level evaluations yielded higher pooled sensitivity (0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.94) and specificity (0.94; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98) compared to video-level analyses.
conclusionsAI-assisted ultrasound demonstrates promising diagnostic performance for fracture detection with generally high specificity and variable sensitivity across architectures and anatomic targets. Future work should prioritize prospective, externally validated studies with standardized acquisition protocols and clinically meaningful reporting at the patient level.
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.