A PHP Error was encountered

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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

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

Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings for midfacial fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings for midfacial fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clin Oral Investig

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Published: April 2022

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings and related clinical decision aids for midfacial fractures in comparison to computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography.

Material And Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching the MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each physical examination finding and reported clinical decision aids.

Results: After screening 2367 records, 12 studies were included. High risk of patient selection bias was detected in three studies (25%). Additionally, high concerns regarding applicability were found for the patient selection in five studies (41.7%), and for the reference standard in eleven studies (91.7%). Of the total 42 individual physical examination findings, only 31 were suitable for a meta-analysis. High specificity and low sensitivity were found for most findings. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 1.07 to 11.38. Clinical decision aids were reported by 8 studies, but none were constructed specifically for midfacial fractures.

Conclusion: Based on the current available evidence, the absence of physical examination findings can successfully identify patients who do not have a midfacial fracture, but the presence of individual findings does not necessarily mean that the patient has a midfacial fracture. Although various clinical decision aids were presented, none focused on exclusively midfacial fractures.

Clinical Relevance: The diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings can be used to diagnose a midfacial fracture so as to reduce unnecessary imaging, health care costs, and exposure to ionizing radiation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8979892PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04423-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

physical examination
24
examination findings
20
diagnostic accuracy
16
clinical decision
16
accuracy physical
12
systematic review
12
decision aids
12
midfacial fracture
12
midfacial fractures
8
review meta-analysis
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!