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

Ta Wei Yang, Yen Yue Lin, Shih Chang Hsu, Karen Chia Wen Chu, Chih Wei Hsiao, Chin Wang Hsu, Chyi Huey Bai, Cheng Kuang Chang, Yuan Pin Hsu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number2587
JournalScientific Reports
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography for scaphoid fractures: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this