We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Ultrasound for Distal Forearm Fracture: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.
PloS One 2016
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for detecting distal forearm fractures.
METHODS: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2015. All prospective studies of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound versus radiography as the reference standard were included. We excluded studies with a retrospective design and those with evidence of verification bias. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed a meta-analysis of studies evaluating ultrasound to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI95%) using a bivariate model with random effects. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the effect of methodological differences and other study characteristics.
RESULTS: Out of 867 publications we included 16 studies with 1,204 patients and 641 fractures. The pooled test characteristics for ultrasound were: sensitivity 97% (CI95% 93-99%), specificity 95% (CI95% 89-98%), positive likelihood ratio (LR) 20.0 (8.5-47.2) and negative LR 0.03 (0.01-0.08). The corresponding pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 667 (142-3,133). Apparent differences were shown for method of viewing, with the 6-view method showing higher specificity, positive LR, and DOR, compared to the 4-view method.
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis showed that ultrasound has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of distal forearm fractures in children when used by proper viewing method. Based on this, ultrasound should be considered a reliable alternative, which has the advantages of being radiation free.
METHODS: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2015. All prospective studies of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound versus radiography as the reference standard were included. We excluded studies with a retrospective design and those with evidence of verification bias. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed a meta-analysis of studies evaluating ultrasound to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI95%) using a bivariate model with random effects. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the effect of methodological differences and other study characteristics.
RESULTS: Out of 867 publications we included 16 studies with 1,204 patients and 641 fractures. The pooled test characteristics for ultrasound were: sensitivity 97% (CI95% 93-99%), specificity 95% (CI95% 89-98%), positive likelihood ratio (LR) 20.0 (8.5-47.2) and negative LR 0.03 (0.01-0.08). The corresponding pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 667 (142-3,133). Apparent differences were shown for method of viewing, with the 6-view method showing higher specificity, positive LR, and DOR, compared to the 4-view method.
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis showed that ultrasound has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of distal forearm fractures in children when used by proper viewing method. Based on this, ultrasound should be considered a reliable alternative, which has the advantages of being radiation free.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app