SynthesisSkeletal radiology2025
Diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography in detecting anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CT in adult patients with Polytrauma: current practices, protocol optimization, structured reporting and future directions.Emergency radiology · 2026Review
- Diagnosing Plantar Plate Injuries: A Narrative Review of Clinical and Imaging Approaches.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are common and lead to significant physical limitations. While MRI is the diagnostic gold standard, its use is restricted in acute trauma cases due to contraindications and longer imaging times. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has emerged as a potential alternative. This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of DECT for ACL injuries. MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase for studies published up to June 2024. Studies that provided diagnostic accuracy data for DECT in ACL ruptures were included. Metrics of diagnostic accuracy were aggregated using a bivariate random effects model.
resultsThe meta-analysis, which included five studies with a total of 191 patients, found that DECT had a pooled sensitivity of 88.1% (95% CI, 78.0-93.9%) and a specificity of 82.0% (95% CI, 62.0-92.7%) for diagnosing ACL ruptures, with an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.72-0.96). For complete ruptures, sensitivity was 83.2% (95% CI, 68.2-92.0%), and specificity was 94.9% (95% CI, 92.2-96.7%), with an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98). In acute/subacute settings, sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI, 76.8-95.6%), and specificity was 82.1% (95% CI, 56.2-94.2%), with an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.71-0.97).
conclusionOur findings suggest that DECT is a valuable diagnostic tool for ACL injuries, particularly as an adjunct or alternative when MRI is unavailable or contraindicated, enabling timely and accurate diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.