| Title |
Diagnosing Suspected Scaphoid Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, September 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-009-1081-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
ZhongGang Yin, JianBing Zhang, ShiLian Kan, XiaoGang Wang |
| Abstract |
Imaging protocols for suspected scaphoid fractures among investigators and hospitals are markedly inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of bone scintigraphy, MRI, and CT for diagnosing suspected scaphoid fractures. Twenty-six studies were included. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were pooled separately and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were fitted for each modality. Meta-regression analyses were performed to compare these modalities. We obtained likelihood ratios derived from the pooled sensitivity and specificity and, using Bayes' theorem, calculated the posttest probability by application of the tests. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, natural logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were, respectively, 97%, 89%, 4.78, 8.82, and 0.03 for bone scintigraphy; 96%, 99%, 6.60, 96, and 0.04 for MRI; and 93%, 99%, 6.11, 93, and 0.07 for CT. Bone scintigraphy and MRI have equally high sensitivity and high diagnostic value for excluding scaphoid fracture; however, MRI is more specific and better for confirming scaphoid fracture. We believe additional studies are needed to assess diagnostic performance of CT, especially paired design studies or randomized controlled trials to compare CT with MRI or bone scintigraphy. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 33 | 25% |
| Unknown | 27 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 76 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 30 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,446,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,412
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,763
of 105,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#12
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 105,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.