Ultrasound for Distal Forearm Fracture: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis

Djoke Douma-den Hamer, Marco H Blanker, Mireille A Edens, Lonneke N Buijteweg, Martijn F Boomsma, Sven H van Helden and Gert-Jan Mauritz

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 5, 1-16

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155659 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 55659&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0155659

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155659

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().