4.7 Review

Diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography for scaphoid fractures: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82351-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan [109-wf-eva-19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scaphoid fractures are common, and diagnosing them accurately can be challenging. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has shown promise in diagnosing scaphoid fractures, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.99. However, the certainty of current evidence is low, and further well-designed studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.
Scaphoid fractures are the most common carpal fractures. Diagnosing scaphoid fractures is challenging. Recently, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been shown to be a promising strategy for diagnosing scaphoid fractures. The diagnostic performance of CBCT remains inconclusive in the literature. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis, our study aims to determine the diagnostic performance of CBCT for diagnosing scaphoid fractures. Five databases were searched up to March 25, 2020. We included prospective and retrospective studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT for scaphoid fractures in adult patients. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Four studies (n=350) were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the four studies had high bias risk. The result showed that CBCT had a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 and a pooled specificity of 0.99 for scaphoid fracture diagnosis. The heterogeneities of sensitivity and specificity were substantial. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.98. No significant publication bias was observed. The result suggested that the diagnostic performance of CBCT for scaphoid fracture was excellent. The certainty of current evidence is low. Further well-designed studies with large sample sizes are warranted to confirm this finding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据