ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Artificial intelligence for pediatric fracture detection: impact on diagnostic revisions and patient recall rates in a tertiary emergency setting.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArtificial intelligence (AI) can support and enhance radiologists in musculoskeletal imaging, but evidence of clinical benefit is still lacking. This prospective study aimed to estimate the range of expected effect size on patient recall rates whether after implementation of an AI system for fracture detection affects in a paediatric emergency setting during out-of-hourse care.
methodsChildren and adolescents (2-18 years) undergoing appendicular skeletal radiography between April and September 2025 during on-call hours at a tertiary referral hospital were eligible. On every second day, automated fracture detection by a commercial AI system (TechCare Kids, Milvue, Paris, France) was available for the treating physician. Endpoints were the rate of diagnostic revisions leading to patient recall the next day, therapeutic changes, length of stay at the emergency department, need for senior consultation, subjective diagnostic confidence, and AI accuracy.
resultsAmong 1515 screened patients, 667 were enrolled (median age 11.0 years, 61% male). Fractures were present in 296 cases (44.3%). AI accuracy was 95.1%. Diagnostic revisions occurred in 8.6% without AI, in 5.7% with AI support (risk ratio 0.66; 95% CI 0.37-1.19). Resulting therapeutic changes were rare in both groups (2.0% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.10). No significant differences were observed for secondary endpoints, including need for senior consultation (14.3% vs. 12.5%), subjective diagnostic confidence, or length of stay (2.3 h vs. 2.4 h).
conclusionGiven the small effect size for patient recall rates in an academic medical setting, it is questionable whether the efforts conducting a confirmatory study with adequate statistical power would be justified by the expected incremental benefit for the investigated outcomes.
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.