影像学对疑似跟骨骨折的诊断价值:文献综述

F. Madadi, F. Madadi, A. Moghaddam
{"title":"影像学对疑似跟骨骨折的诊断价值:文献综述","authors":"F. Madadi, F. Madadi, A. Moghaddam","doi":"10.4172/2329-910X.1000186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Calcaneal fracture account as the most common tarsal bones injury. Diagnosis of fracture is based on X-rays radiological studies, but CT-scan is the most reliable tool for diagnosis of calcaneus fracture. In this study, we conducted a systematic review, which will help readers to get a better view of usefulness of different imaging modality in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture. Methods: We conducted a systematic review based on PRISMA protocol. To find all citations, PubMed /Medline, ISI web of knowledge, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched from their beginning to June 2015. Two authors, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screened all citations and abstracts and extracted all needed information from included literatures, independently. In order to assess the quality of included studies, QUADAS was used. Results: Ten literatures included in this systematic review. Sensitivity of different conventional radiographs ranged from 0% for Foot posteroanterior to 100% for Foot reversed oblique and Combined Lateral and axial calcaneal X-ray. Specificity of conventional radiographs ranged from 72% for lateral calcaneal X-ray to 100% for Lateral foot or ankle radiograph. For the CT-scan, three-dimensional (3D) shaded radiographs had highest sensitivity (90.7%) and specificity (93.9%). Four studies tried to show value of angle’s measures in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture that had different results. Conclusions: We concluded that there are few literatures evaluating different imaging modality in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture and results are not enough to prove advantage of one modality to others. So, one study with a large population sample is needed to compare diagnostic value of different modalities.","PeriodicalId":92013,"journal":{"name":"Clinical research on foot & ankle","volume":"4 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Value of Imaging Modalities for Suspected Calcaneal Fracture:A Systematic Review of Literatures\",\"authors\":\"F. Madadi, F. Madadi, A. Moghaddam\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2329-910X.1000186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Calcaneal fracture account as the most common tarsal bones injury. Diagnosis of fracture is based on X-rays radiological studies, but CT-scan is the most reliable tool for diagnosis of calcaneus fracture. In this study, we conducted a systematic review, which will help readers to get a better view of usefulness of different imaging modality in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture. Methods: We conducted a systematic review based on PRISMA protocol. To find all citations, PubMed /Medline, ISI web of knowledge, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched from their beginning to June 2015. Two authors, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screened all citations and abstracts and extracted all needed information from included literatures, independently. In order to assess the quality of included studies, QUADAS was used. Results: Ten literatures included in this systematic review. Sensitivity of different conventional radiographs ranged from 0% for Foot posteroanterior to 100% for Foot reversed oblique and Combined Lateral and axial calcaneal X-ray. Specificity of conventional radiographs ranged from 72% for lateral calcaneal X-ray to 100% for Lateral foot or ankle radiograph. For the CT-scan, three-dimensional (3D) shaded radiographs had highest sensitivity (90.7%) and specificity (93.9%). Four studies tried to show value of angle’s measures in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture that had different results. Conclusions: We concluded that there are few literatures evaluating different imaging modality in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture and results are not enough to prove advantage of one modality to others. So, one study with a large population sample is needed to compare diagnostic value of different modalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical research on foot & ankle\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical research on foot & ankle\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-910X.1000186\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical research on foot & ankle","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-910X.1000186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:跟骨骨折是最常见的跗骨损伤。骨折的诊断是基于x射线放射学研究,但ct扫描是诊断跟骨骨折最可靠的工具。在这项研究中,我们进行了一项系统的综述,这将有助于读者更好地了解不同成像方式在跟骨骨折诊断中的有用性。方法:我们根据PRISMA方案进行了系统评价。为了找到所有的引文,检索了PubMed /Medline、ISI web of knowledge、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库,从它们的开始到2015年6月。两位作者应用纳入和排除标准,独立筛选所有引文和摘要,并从纳入的文献中提取所有需要的信息。为了评估纳入研究的质量,采用QUADAS。结果:本系统综述纳入10篇文献。不同常规x线片对足后前位的灵敏度为0%,对足反向斜位和与侧、轴位联合x线片的灵敏度为100%。常规x线片的特异性从跟侧x线片的72%到足侧或踝关节x线片的100%不等。对于ct扫描,三维(3D)阴影x线片具有最高的灵敏度(90.7%)和特异性(93.9%)。四项研究试图显示角度测量在跟骨骨折诊断中的价值,但结果不同。结论:评价不同影像学方式对跟骨骨折的诊断价值的文献很少,结果也不足以证明一种影像学方式对其他影像学方式的优势。因此,需要一项具有大量人口样本的研究来比较不同模式的诊断价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic Value of Imaging Modalities for Suspected Calcaneal Fracture:A Systematic Review of Literatures
Background: Calcaneal fracture account as the most common tarsal bones injury. Diagnosis of fracture is based on X-rays radiological studies, but CT-scan is the most reliable tool for diagnosis of calcaneus fracture. In this study, we conducted a systematic review, which will help readers to get a better view of usefulness of different imaging modality in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture. Methods: We conducted a systematic review based on PRISMA protocol. To find all citations, PubMed /Medline, ISI web of knowledge, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched from their beginning to June 2015. Two authors, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screened all citations and abstracts and extracted all needed information from included literatures, independently. In order to assess the quality of included studies, QUADAS was used. Results: Ten literatures included in this systematic review. Sensitivity of different conventional radiographs ranged from 0% for Foot posteroanterior to 100% for Foot reversed oblique and Combined Lateral and axial calcaneal X-ray. Specificity of conventional radiographs ranged from 72% for lateral calcaneal X-ray to 100% for Lateral foot or ankle radiograph. For the CT-scan, three-dimensional (3D) shaded radiographs had highest sensitivity (90.7%) and specificity (93.9%). Four studies tried to show value of angle’s measures in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture that had different results. Conclusions: We concluded that there are few literatures evaluating different imaging modality in diagnosis of calcaneal fracture and results are not enough to prove advantage of one modality to others. So, one study with a large population sample is needed to compare diagnostic value of different modalities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信