Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: This study aimed to compare CT and XR images of patients admitted to the emergency department due to wrist injuries and to evaluate the accuracy of XR in the diagnosis of fractures.
Methods: Patients; who admitted to ED with injuries due to wrist trauma and who underwent XR imaging and CT scans in the period from 1 January 2017 to 1 January 2018, were included in the study. CT scan image interpretation reports recorded in the hospital automation system were considered eligible to be included in the study. XR images were interpreted by an orthopedics and traumatology specialist. The sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and Kappa (κ) coefficient of XR were calculated according to CT. Inter-rater agreement was graded according to κ values.
Results: A total of 274 patients were included in the study. Fractures were identified in the XR images in 180 (66%) patients and in the CT images in 196 (72%) patients. Compared to CT, the Sn, Sp, PPV, NPV and κ coefficient of XR were 89%, 92%, 97%, 77% and 0.764 respectively. Compared to CT, the highest sensitivity of XR was measured to detecting radius (Sn: 95%, κ: 0.896) and 5th metacarpal fractures (Sn: 77%, κ: 0.859), the lowest sensitivity of XR was calculated in detecting scaphoid, capitate, pisiform, trapezium hamate, and triquetrum fractures (Sn: 59-14%, κ: 0.619-0.240). The sensitivity and κ coefficient of XR were calculated 54% and 0.530 in the adjacent bone fracture, 83% and 0.830 in joint dislocation, 75% and 0.661 in the fractures extending to the joint space.
Conclusions: XR is the first-choice imaging modality in the evaluation of wrist injuries, but CT imaging should be preferred when fractures extending to the joint space, adjacent bone fracture and carpal bone fracture are being considered.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.01.034 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!