Clinical Tests to Diagnose Stress Fractures

NewsBot · Sep 1, 2012

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
The Ability of Clinical Tests to Diagnose Stress Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Anthony G. Schneiders, S. John Sullivan, Paul A. Hendrick, Benjamin D.G.M. Hones, Andrew R. McMaster, Bridget A. Sugden, Celia Tomlinson
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(9):760-771

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests to identify stress fractures in the lower limb.

BACKGROUND: Stress fractures are a bone-related overuse injury primarily occurring in the lower limb and commonly affecting running athletes and military personnel. Physical examination procedures and clinical tests are suggested for diagnosing stress fractures; however, data on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests have not been investigated through a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in 8 electronic databases to identify diagnostic accuracy studies, published between January 1950 and June 2011, that evaluated clinical tests against a radiological diagnosis of lower-limb stress fracture. Retrieved articles were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and a meta-analysis was performed where appropriate.

RESULTS: Nine articles investigating 2 clinical procedures, therapeutic ultrasound (n = 7) and tuning fork testing (n = 2), met the study inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was used to statistically analyze the data extracted from the ultrasound articles and demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55%, 73%), specificity of 63% (95% CI: 54%, 71%), positive likelihood ratio of 2.1 (95% CI: 1.1, 3.5), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1, 0.9). Tuning fork test data could not be pooled; however, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio ranged from 35% to 92%, 19% to 83%, 0.6 to 3.0, and 0.4 to 1.6, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review do not support the specific use of ultrasound or tuning forks as standalone diagnostic tests for lower-limb stress fractures. As the overall diagnostic accuracy of the tests investigated is not strong, based on the calculated likelihood ratios, it is recommended that radiological imaging should continue to be used for the confirmation and diagnosis of stress fractures of the lower limb.
Click to expand...

Admin2 · Sep 1, 2012

Related threads:
Other threads tagged with stress fractures

NewsBot · Aug 23, 2016

Using Tuning-Fork Tests in Diagnosing Fractures.
Chelsey M. Toney, Kenneth E. Games, Zachary K. Winkelmann, and Lindsey E. Eberman
Journal of Athletic Training: June 2016, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 498-499.

Clinical Question: Does evidence support the use of tuning-fork tests in the diagnosis of fractures in clinical practice?

Data Sources: The authors performed a comprehensive literature search of AMED, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science from each database's start to November 2012. In addition, they manually searched reference lists from the initial search result to identify relevant studies. The following key words were used independently or in combination: auscultation, barford test, exp fractures, fracture, tf test, tuning fork.

Study Selection: Studies were eligible based on the following criteria: (1) primary studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of tuning forks; (2) measured against a recognized reference standard such as magnetic resonance imaging, radiography, or bone scan; and (3) the outcome was reported using pain or reduction of sound. Studies included patients of all ages in all clinical settings with no exclusion for language of publication. Studies were not eligible if they were case series, case-control studies, or narrative review papers.

Data Extraction: Potentially eligible studies were independently assessed by 2 researchers. All relevant articles were included and assessed for inclusion criteria and value using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool, and relevant data were extracted. The QUADAS-2 is an updated version of the original QUADAS and focuses on both the risk of bias and applicability of a study through a series of questions. A third researcher was consulted if the 2 initial reviewers did not reach consensus. Data for the primary outcome measure (accuracy of the test) were presented in a 2 ? 2 contingency table to show sensitivity and specificity (using the Wilson score method) and positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Main Results: A total of 62 citations were initially identified. Six primary studies (329 patients) were included in the review. The 6 studies assessed the accuracy of 2 tuning-fork test methods (pain induction and reduction of sound transmission). The patients ranged in age from 7 to 84 years. The prevalence of fracture in these patients ranged from 10% to 80% using a reference standard such as magnetic resonance imaging, radiography, or bone scan. The sensitivity of the tuning-fork tests was high, ranging from 75% to 92%. The specificity of the tuning-fork tests had a wide range of 18% to 94%. The positive likelihood ratios ranged from 1.1 to 16.5; the negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.09 to 0.49.

Conclusions: The studies included in this review demonstrated that tuning-fork tests have some value in ruling out fractures. However, strong evidence is lacking to support the use of current tuning-fork tests to rule in a fracture in clinical practice. Similarly, the tuning-fork tests were not statistically accurate in the diagnosis of fractures for widespread clinical use. Despite the lack of strong evidence for diagnosing all fractures, tuning-fork tests may be appropriate in rural and remote settings in which access to the gold standards for diagnosis of fractures is limited.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Feb 22, 2021

Accuracy of the Tuning Fork Test for Determination of Presence and Location of Tibial Stress Fractures in a Military Training Population
Todd May, MC, USN (Ret.), Janelle Marra, MC, USN, Amy Leu, DO, Denise Torbert, MC, USN, Tricia VanWagner, MC, USN, Zachary Alexander, MC, USN, Robin Rainie-Lobacz, PA-C, Margaret Ryan, MC, USN (Ret.)
Military Medicine, 12 February 2021

Introduction
Stress fractures or bone stress injuries arise from trauma or overuse, often as a result of rapid increase in training. This rapid increase in training occurs frequently as military recruits begin their entry-level training, as many individuals are not accustomed to the level of activity required during boot camp. Tibial stress fractures are the most common bone stress injuries in the military setting. MRI is the gold standard test for identification of stress fractures, but MRI may not be available in field settings. Although limited evidence has suggested that a vibrating tuning fork may be beneficial in determining the presence of a stress fracture, the tuning fork has become a frequent tool used to detect or diagnose stress fractures.

Materials and Methods
Military personnel with suspected unilateral tibial stress fractures were asked to participate in evaluation of tuning forks as a diagnostic tool, in addition to receiving standard diagnostics and treatment. Points of maximal shin tenderness to palpation and vibration, followed by the application of a tuning fork, were evaluated. Each service member also underwent an abbreviated MRI evaluation with a 1.5T magnet consisting of coronal and sagittal STIR (Short Tau Inversion Recovery) and T1 (weighted longitudinal relaxation time) sequences. The results of tuning fork testing were compared to the MRI findings, considering grade 1 changes on MRI to represent a true stress fracture. A two-by-two table was used to determine the performance of tuning fork testing, relative to MRI findings, applying conventional definitions of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Results
Among 63 male active duty members with suspected tibial stress fractures, 39 had MRI-confirmed stress fractures. Tuning fork testing, relative to MRI, demonstrated overall sensitivity of 61.5%, specificity of 25.0%, positive predictive value of 57.1%, and negative predictive value of 28.6%. A sub-analysis restricting to grade 3 and grade 4 MRI findings did not improve the diagnostic performance of tuning forks.

Conclusions
The tuning fork is an ineffective tool for diagnosing tibial stress fractures.
Click to expand...

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

clinical tests

Two simple clinical tests for predicting onset of medial tibial stress syndrome

Clinical tests for onychomycosis

Ultrasound clinical references of the healthy toenail unit

Design of the Insole to Treat the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity

Buying caseload and rental of established clinical room

Clinical guidelines for hallux valgus

Share This Page