Table 1.
Study |
No. of patient
(+ / -) |
Age 1 (years) | Male (%) | Reference / Index | Transducer / Operator | Sampling / Fracture | Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hendrich 1995 ( 1 ) | 15 / 30 | 45 (29-61) | 57.8 | CXR / US | 7.5 MHz / Radiologist |
Convenience / sternum | Low sample size Possibility of selection bias |
Engin 2000 ( 2 ) | 18 / 5 | 35.4 (18-75) | 82.6 | CXR / US | 7.5 MHz / Radiologist |
Convenience / Sternum | Retrospective design Low sample size Possibility of selection bias |
Hurley 2004 ( 8 ) | 15 / 5 | 31 (16-55) | 78.6 | CT / US, CXR | 12.5 MHz / Radiologist |
Consecutive / Rib | Low sample size |
Rainer 2004 ( 11 ) | 76 / 12 | 51 ± 19 | 59 | CT / US, CXR | 5-to 10-MHz / Radiologist | Convenience / Sternum | |
Jin 2006 ( 10 ) | 23 / 16 | 45.2 (15-82) | 52 | CT / US, CXR | 5-to 9-MHz / Radiologist | Convenience / Multiple | Low sample size Possibility of selection bias |
Traub 2007 ( 14 ) | 68 / 73 | 47 .2 (18-89) | 75 | CT / CXR | NA / Radiologist |
Convenience / Rib | Retrospective design Possibility of selection bias |
Wootton- Gorges 2008 ( 17 ) | 131 / 94 | 0.2 (0.1-0.5) | 41.7 | CT / CXR | NA / Radiologist |
Consecutive / Rib | Retrospective design Possibility of selection bias Low sample size |
Cross 2010 ( 18 ) | 43 / 57 | 10.7 (1-17) | 87.3 | CXR / US | 10- to 15-MHz/ EP | Convenience / Clavicle | Possibility of selection bias |
Weinberg 2010 ( 20 ) | 25 / 187 | 13 (3-23) | NR | CT / US | 7.5- to 10-MHz/ EP | Convenience / Clavicle and rib | Possibility of selection bias |
You 2010 ( 21 ) | 24 / 12 | 43 (8-73) | 52.8 | CT / US | 7-to 12-MHz / Radiologist | Consecutive / Rib | Low sample size |
Szucs-Farkas 2011 ( 22 ) | 39 / 24 | 64.4 ± 14.7 | 73 | CT / CXR | NA / Radiologist |
Convenience / Rib | Retrospective design Low sample size Possibility of selection bias |
Yazkan 2012 ( 23 ) | 83 / 83 | 40.8 (16-92) | 73.5 | CT / CXR | NA / Surgeon |
Consecutive / Rib | Retrospective design |
Błasińska 2013 ( 24 ) | 34 / 26 | NR | NR | CT / CXR | NA / Radiologist |
Consecutive / Multiple | Low sample size |
Chardoli 2013 ( 25 ) | 51 / 149 | 37.9 (16 - 90) | 84 | CT / CXR | NA / EP | Convenience / Rib | The interpretation of the CXR and CT were not in blind fashion Possible selection bias |
Uzun 2013 ( 12 ) | 92 / 8 | 28 (15 - 40) | 73 | CT / US, CXR | NR / Radiologist |
Consecutive / Rib | Possibility of reporting bias |
Hoffstetter 2014 ( 26 ) | 15 / 24 | 61 (24-87) | 60.7 | CT / CXR | NA / Radiologist |
Consecutive / Multiple | Retrospective design Low sample size |
Park 2015 ( 27 ) | 55 / 55 | 56.2 (16.9) | 57.4 | CT / CXR | NA / Radiologist |
Consecutive / Rib | Low sample size |
1, (+ / -): number of patient with fracture / number of patient without fracture; 2, Number are presented as mean ± standard deviation or (range). CT: Computed tomography; CXR: Chest radiography; EP: Emergency physician; NA: Not applicable; NR: Not Reported; US: Ultrasonography