Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society (대한견·주관절의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests to rule out elbow fracture: a systematic review

  • Giorgio Breda (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna) ;
  • Gianluca De Marco (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna) ;
  • Pierfranco Cesaraccio (Department of Neurosciences (DNS), University of Padua) ;
  • Paolo Pillastrini (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna)
  • Received : 2022.03.24
  • Accepted : 2022.05.23
  • Published : 2023.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Elbow traumas represent a relatively common condition in clinical practice. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the most accurate tests for screening these potentially serious conditions and excluding elbow fractures. The purpose of this investigation was to analyze the literature concerning the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the detection or exclusion of suspected elbow fractures. A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. Literature databases including PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Diagnostic Test Accuracy, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were searched for diagnostic accuracy studies of subjects with suspected traumatic elbow fracture investigating clinical tests compared to imaging reference tests. The risk of bias in each study was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 checklist. Twelve studies (4,485 patients) were included. Three different types of index tests were extracted. In adults, these tests were very sensitive, with values up to 98.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.0%-99.8%). The specificity was very variable, ranging from 24.0% (95% CI, 19.0%-30.0%) to 69.4% (95% CI, 57.3%-79.5%). The applicability of these tests was very high, while overall studies showed a medium risk of bias. Elbow full range of motion test, elbow extension test, and elbow extension and point tenderness test appear to be useful in the presence of a negative test to exclude fracture in a majority of cases. The specificity of all tests, however, does not allow us to draw useful conclusions because there was a great variability of results obtained.

Keywords

References

  1. Macdermid JC, Vincent JI, Kieffer L, Kieffer A, Demaiter J, Macintosh S. A survey of practice patterns for rehabilitation post elbow fracture. Open Orthop J 2012;6:429-39. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001206010429
  2. Barr LV. Paediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: epidemiology, mechanisms and incidence during school holidays. J Child Orthop 2014;8:167-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-014-0577-0
  3. Houshian S, Mehdi B, Larsen MS. The epidemiology of elbow fracture in children: analysis of 355 fractures, with special reference to supracondylar humerus fractures. J Orthop Sci 2001;6:312-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007760100024
  4. Robinson CM, Hill RM, Jacobs N, Dall G, Court-Brown CM. Adult distal humeral metaphyseal fractures: epidemiology and results of treatment. J Orthop Trauma 2003;17:38-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200301000-00006
  5. Mellema JJ, Janssen SJ, Guitton TG, Ring D. Quantitative 3-dimensional computed tomography measurements of coronoid fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2015;40:526-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.07.059
  6. Rabiner JE, Khine H, Avner JR, Friedman LM, Tsung JW. Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosis of elbow fractures in children. Ann Emerg Med 2013;61:9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.07.112
  7. Bentohami A, Walenkamp MM, Slaar A, et al. Amsterdam wrist rules: a clinical decision aid. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011;12:238.
  8. Barelds I, Krijnen WP, van de Leur JP, van der Schans CP, Goddard RJ. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules to exclude fractures in acute ankle injuries: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Emerg Med 2017;53:353-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.04.035
  9. Heyworth J. Ottawa ankle rules for the injured ankle. Br J Sports Med 2003; 37:194.
  10. Lau LH, Kerr D, Law I, Ritchie P. Nurse practitioners treating ankle and foot injuries using the Ottawa Ankle Rules: a comparative study in the emergency department. Australas Emerg Nurs J 2013; 16:110-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aenj.2013.05.007
  11. Eggli S, Sclabas GM, Eggli S, Zimmermann H, Exadaktylos AK. The Bernese ankle rules: a fast, reliable test after low-energy, supination-type malleolar and midfoot trauma. J Trauma 2005;59:1268-71. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ta.0000196436.95569.a3
  12. Seaberg DC, Yealy DM, Lukens T, Auble T, Mathias S. Multicenter comparison of two clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute, high-risk knee injuries. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:8-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70092-7
  13. Darracq MA, Vinson DR, Panacek EA. Preservation of active range of motion after acute elbow trauma predicts absence of elbow fracture. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:779-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2007.11.005
  14. Vinson DR, Kann GS, Gaona SD, Panacek EA. Performance of the 4-way range of motion test for radiographic injuries after blunt elbow trauma. Am J Emerg Med 2016;34:235-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2015.10.031
  15. Joshi N, Lira A, Mehta N, Paladino L, Sinert R. Diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, and bedside ultrasound for diagnosis of extremity fractures in the emergency department: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2013;20:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12058
  16. McInnes MD, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018;319:388-96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163
  17. De Vet HC, Eisinga A, Riphagen II, Aertgeerts B, Pewsner D. Chapter 7: searching for studies. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
  18. Coar JT, Sewell JP. Zotero: harnessing the power of a personal bibliographic manager. Nurse Educ 2010;35:205-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e3181ed81e4
  19. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:529-36. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
  20. Acar K, Aksay E, Oray D, IImamoglu T , Gunay E. Utility of computed tomography in elbow trauma patients with normal X-ray study and positive elbow extension test. J Emerg Med 2016;50:444-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.03.009
  21. Amiri H, Shams Vahdati S, Fekri S, Zadegan SA, Shokoohi H, Rahimi-Movaghar V, et al. Does preservation of active range of motion after acute elbow injury rule out the need for radiography. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2012; 18:479-82. https://doi.org/10.5505/tjtes.2012.26790
  22. Baker M, Borland M. Range of elbow movement as a predictor of bony injury in children. Emerg Med J 2011; 28:666-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2010.091124
  23. Lennon RI, Riyat MS, Hilliam R, Anathkrishnan G, Alderson G. Can a normal range of elbow movement predict a normal elbow x ray. Emerg Med J 2007;24:86-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2006.039792
  24. Appelboam A, Reuben AD, Benger JR, et al. Elbow extension test to rule out elbow fracture: multicentre, prospective validation and observational study of diagnostic accuracy in adults and children. BMJ 2008;337:a2428.
  25. Docherty MA, Schwab RA, Ma OJ. Can elbow extension be used as a test of clinically significant injury. South Med J 2002;95:539-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-200295050-00016
  26. Hawksworth CR, Freeland P. Inability to fully extend the injured elbow: an indicator of significant injury. Arch Emerg Med 1991;8:253-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.8.4.253
  27. Lamprakis A, Vlasis K, Siampou E, Grammatikopoulos I, Lionis C. Can elbow-extension test be used as an alternative to radiographs in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract 2007; 13:221-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814780701814820
  28. Arundel D, Williams P, Townend W. Deriving the East Riding Elbow Rule (ER2): a maximally sensitive decision tool for elbow injury. Emerg Med J 2014; 31:380-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2012-202169
  29. Dubrovsky AS, Mok E, Lau SY, Al Humaidan M. Point tenderness at 1 of 5 locations and limited elbow extension identify significant injury in children with acute elbow trauma: a study of diagnostic accuracy. Am J Emerg Med 2015;33:229-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2014.11.028
  30. Jie KE, van Dam LF, Verhagen TF, Hammacher ER. Extension test and ossal point tenderness cannot accurately exclude significant injury in acute elbow trauma. Ann Emerg Med 2014;64:74-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.01.022