The diagnostic characteristics and reliability of radiological methods used in the assessment of scaphoid fracture union : a systematic review
- PMID: 40024273
- PMCID: PMC11872279
- DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.63.BJO-2024-0211.R1
The diagnostic characteristics and reliability of radiological methods used in the assessment of scaphoid fracture union : a systematic review
Abstract
Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic characteristics and reliability of radiological methods used to assess scaphoid fracture union through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 2022. Any study reporting data on the diagnostic characteristics and/or the reliability of radiological methods assessing scaphoid union was included. Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
Results: A total of 13 studies were included, which were three assessed radiographs alone, six CT alone, and four radiographs + CT. Diagnostic sensitivity was assessed by CT in three studies (0.78, 0.78, and 0.73) and by radiographs in two studies (0.65, 0.75). Diagnostic specificity was assessed by CT in three studies (0.96, 0.8, 0.4) and by radiographs in two studies (0.67, 0.4). Interobserver reliability was assessed for radiographs by seven studies (two fair, four moderate, and one substantial) and for CT in nine studies (one fair, one moderate, six substantial, and one almost perfect).
Conclusion: There is evidence to support both the use of CT and radiographs in assessing scaphoid fracture union. Although CT appears superior in terms of both its diagnostic characteristics and reliability, further research is necessary to better define the optimal clinical pathways for patients.
© 2025 Smith et al.
Conflict of interest statement
B. J. F. Dean reports an Orthopaedic Research UK grant, which is unrelated to this work. J. Dias discloses an unrelated SWIFFT NIHR grant. N. D. Riley declares consulting fees from Acumed, Arthrex, and Sovereign Medical; and being on the orthopaedic data evaluation hand and wrist panel, all of which are also unrelated.
References
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources