Reporting errors in plain radiographs for lower limb trauma-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thomas York, Christopher Franklin, Kate Reynolds, Greg Munro, Heloise Jenney, William Harland, Darren Leong
Author Information
  1. Thomas York: Guys and St Thomas' NHS Trust, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. thomas.york@nhs.net. ORCID
  2. Christopher Franklin: London Northwest University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
  3. Kate Reynolds: London Northwest University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
  4. Greg Munro: London Northwest University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
  5. Heloise Jenney: London Northwest University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
  6. William Harland: London Northwest University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
  7. Darren Leong: London Northwest University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Plain radiographs are a globally ubiquitous means of investigation for injuries to the musculoskeletal system. Despite this, initial interpretation remains a challenge and inaccuracies give rise to adverse sequelae for patients and healthcare providers alike. This study sought to address the limited, existing meta-analytic research on the initial reporting of radiographs for skeletal trauma, with specific regard to diagnostic accuracy of the most commonly injured region of the appendicular skeleton, the lower limb.
METHOD: A prospectively registered, systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using published research from the major clinical-science databases. Studies identified as appropriate for inclusion underwent methodological quality and risk of bias analysis. Meta-analysis was then performed to establish summary rates for specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic accuracy, including covariates by anatomical site, using HSROC and bivariate models.
RESULTS: A total of 3887 articles were screened, with 10 identified as suitable for analysis based on the eligibility criteria. Sensitivity and specificity across the studies were 93.5% and 89.7% respectively. Compared with other anatomical subdivisions, interpretation of ankle radiographs yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity, with values of 98.1% and 94.6% respectively, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 929.97.
CONCLUSION: Interpretation of lower limb skeletal radiographs operates at a reasonably high degree of sensitivity and specificity. However, one in twenty true positives is missed on initial radiographic interpretation and safety netting systems need to be established to address this. Virtual fracture clinic reviews and teleradiology services in conjunction with novel technology will likely be crucial in these circumstances.

Keywords

References

  1. Br J Radiol. 1994 Oct;67(802):945-50 [PMID: 8000837]
  2. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Apr 3;101(7):e27 [PMID: 30946201]
  3. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799 [PMID: 28137831]
  4. Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Mar;36(3):362-365 [PMID: 28807445]
  5. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74 [PMID: 843571]
  6. Foot Ankle. 1987 Aug;8(1):26-8 [PMID: 3623358]
  7. Injury. 2000 Jun;31(5):325-6 [PMID: 10775685]
  8. ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6 [PMID: 12956787]
  9. Br J Radiol. 2009 Dec;82(984):982-8 [PMID: 19470570]
  10. Skeletal Radiol. 2020 Apr;49(4):601-611 [PMID: 31754742]
  11. Br J Radiol. 2015 Feb;88(1046):20140503 [PMID: 25496373]
  12. Eur Radiol. 2004 Apr;14(4):625-30 [PMID: 14600775]
  13. Surgeon. 2016 Oct;14(5):252-5 [PMID: 26279203]
  14. J Digit Imaging. 1991 Aug;4(3):143-52 [PMID: 1911972]
  15. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Jun;100(4):419-22 [PMID: 24794499]
  16. Emerg Med Australas. 2015 Apr;27(2):177-8 [PMID: 25406674]
  17. Emerg Med J. 2001 Jul;18(4):263-9 [PMID: 11435359]
  18. BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2017 Feb 6;6(1): [PMID: 28243440]
  19. J Clin Med. 2019 Dec 30;9(1): [PMID: 31906002]
  20. Arch Emerg Med. 1990 Jun;7(2):90-4 [PMID: 2117932]
  21. Br J Radiol. 1979 Apr;52(616):332-4 [PMID: 444831]
  22. Clin Radiol. 2005 Feb;60(2):232-41 [PMID: 15664578]
  23. BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898 [PMID: 31462531]
  24. Radiographics. 1990 Sep;10(5):915-43 [PMID: 2217979]
  25. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Jan;5(1):12-8 [PMID: 18180002]
  26. Skeletal Radiol. 1997 May;26(5):298-302 [PMID: 9194231]
  27. Acta Orthop Scand. 1987 Oct;58(5):539-44 [PMID: 3425285]
  28. Eur J Radiol Open. 2019 Mar 13;6:119-121 [PMID: 30911591]
  29. Br J Radiol. 1991 May;64(761):403-8 [PMID: 2036561]
  30. Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Jan;29(1):18-25 [PMID: 20825769]
  31. NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Oct 30;3:144 [PMID: 33145440]
  32. J Accid Emerg Med. 1996 Nov;13(6):400-1 [PMID: 8947798]
  33. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 May;164(5):1185-9 [PMID: 7717229]

MeSH Term

Humans
Lower Extremity
Radiography
Sensitivity and Specificity

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0radiographslimbspecificityinitialinterpretationdiagnosticlowersensitivityaddressresearchreportingskeletalaccuracysystematicreviewmeta-analysisperformedusingidentifiedanalysisanatomicalrespectivelyankleReportingerrorsINTRODUCTION:PlaingloballyubiquitousmeansinvestigationinjuriesmusculoskeletalsystemDespiteremainschallengeinaccuraciesgiveriseadversesequelaepatientshealthcareprovidersalikestudysoughtlimitedexistingmeta-analytictraumaspecificregardcommonlyinjuredregionappendicularskeletonMETHOD:prospectivelyregisteredpublishedmajorclinical-sciencedatabasesStudiesappropriateinclusionunderwentmethodologicalqualityriskbiasMeta-analysisestablishsummaryratesincludingcovariatessiteHSROCbivariatemodelsRESULTS:total3887articlesscreened10suitablebasedeligibilitycriteriaSensitivityacrossstudies935%897%Comparedsubdivisionsyieldedhighestvalues981%946%oddsratio92997CONCLUSION:InterpretationoperatesreasonablyhighdegreeHoweveronetwentytruepositivesmissedradiographicsafetynettingsystemsneedestablishedVirtualfractureclinicreviewsteleradiologyservicesconjunctionnoveltechnologywilllikelycrucialcircumstancesplaintrauma-aAccuracyEmergencyFootInitialKneeLowerSkeletalTrauma

Similar Articles

Cited By