Limits...
Is there sufficient evidence for tuning fork tests in diagnosing fractures? A systematic review.

Mugunthan K, Doust J, Kurz B, Glasziou P - BMJ Open (2014)

Bottom Line: The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the test as measured by its sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs.The specificity of the tests was highly heterogeneous, ranging from 18% to 95%.The small sample size of the studies and the observed heterogeneity make generalisable conclusion difficult.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Research in Evidence Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Australia.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Sensitivity versus 1-specificity (receiver operating characteristic) plot of included studies.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4127942&req=5

BMJOPEN2014005238F2: Sensitivity versus 1-specificity (receiver operating characteristic) plot of included studies.

Mentions: Figure 2 shows sensitivity versus 1-specificity (receiver operating characteristic plot) for the six included studies. The sensitivity of the tuning fork tests was generally high, ranging from 75% to 100%. In the study to rule out fracture in patients who had tested positive to the ‘Ottawa ankle rule’, the use of the tuning fork on either the tip of the lateral malleolus or the distal fibula shaft gave a sensitivity of 100%, albeit there were only five patients with fractures.8 However, the specificity of the test in the six studies was highly heterogeneous, ranging from 18% to 95%.


Is there sufficient evidence for tuning fork tests in diagnosing fractures? A systematic review.

Mugunthan K, Doust J, Kurz B, Glasziou P - BMJ Open (2014)

Sensitivity versus 1-specificity (receiver operating characteristic) plot of included studies.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4127942&req=5

BMJOPEN2014005238F2: Sensitivity versus 1-specificity (receiver operating characteristic) plot of included studies.
Mentions: Figure 2 shows sensitivity versus 1-specificity (receiver operating characteristic plot) for the six included studies. The sensitivity of the tuning fork tests was generally high, ranging from 75% to 100%. In the study to rule out fracture in patients who had tested positive to the ‘Ottawa ankle rule’, the use of the tuning fork on either the tip of the lateral malleolus or the distal fibula shaft gave a sensitivity of 100%, albeit there were only five patients with fractures.8 However, the specificity of the test in the six studies was highly heterogeneous, ranging from 18% to 95%.

Bottom Line: The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the test as measured by its sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs.The specificity of the tests was highly heterogeneous, ranging from 18% to 95%.The small sample size of the studies and the observed heterogeneity make generalisable conclusion difficult.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Research in Evidence Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Australia.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus