SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
The diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in detecting foot and ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFoot and ankle fractures, including radiographically subtle or occult injuries, present a diagnostic challenge in emergency settings, with missed diagnoses causing severe complications. Artificial intelligence (AI), specifically deep learning, offers a promising adjunct for radiographic interpretation. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic test accuracy of AI in detecting foot and ankle fractures and appraises the available evidence for occult fracture detection where reported.
methodAdhering to PRISMA-DTA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception to 10 May 2026. Studies evaluating AI algorithms for identifying foot and ankle fractures on radiographs or CT were included, with occult-fracture data extracted separately when available. Extracted data populated 2 × 2 contingency tables. We utilized a bivariate random-effects model to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Quality was assessed via QUADAS-2.
resultsSixteen studies encompassing over 37,000 radiographs or images were included. Pooled sensitivity was 92.4% (95% CrI 82.5-96.1%) and pooled specificity was 95.1% (95% CrI 83.3-98.3%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 236.64 (95% CrI 33.56-1087.11). At a 25% pre-test probability, a positive AI result increased post-test probability to 86%, while a negative result reduced it to 3%. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed. Only two studies explicitly reported occult fracture cases; therefore, the pooled estimates primarily reflect AI performance for overall foot and ankle fracture detection rather than occult fractures alone.
conclusionAI algorithms demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for foot and ankle fracture detection and show meaningful clinical utility as adjunctive tools. However, current evidence is insufficient to support robust occult-fracture-specific conclusions, and all included studies were retrospective. Prospective validation, standardized reporting of occult fracture subgroups, and real-world impact studies are needed before widespread clinical implementation.
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.