Comparative use of ultrasound and radiography for the detection of fractures: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, X-rays have remained the standard modality for bone fracture diagnosis. However, other diagnostic modalities most notably ultrasound have emerged as a simple, radiation-safe, effective imaging tool to diagnose bone fractures. Despite the advantages, there is a prevalent scarcity of literature recognizing its significance in bone trauma management. This review investigates the effectiveness of ultrasound in the diagnosis of various bone fractures when compared to conventional radiography such as X-rays. METHODOLOGY: Electronic databases such as PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science (WOS) were reviewed for observational studies and review articles from the years 2017–2022 utilizing MESH terminology in a broad term search strategy. The search returned a total of 248 articles. After removal of duplicates, abstract, and full-text screening this systematic review ultimately utilized data from 31 articles. All searches were performed and analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) methodology and were conducted during August 2022. In accordance with the guidelines for assessing the quality of included systematic reviews, we used the AMSTAR 2020, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/MS9/A241 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A data extraction form based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review group’s extraction template for quality assessment and evidence synthesis was used for data extraction. The information extracted included details such as author information, database, journal details, type of study, etc. Studies included will be classified into long bones, short bones, pneumatic bones, irregular bones, ankle and knee, stress fractures, hip fractures, POCUS, and others. All included studies considered bias and ethical criteria and provided valuable evidence to answer the research question. RESULTS: The search returned a total of 248 articles, with 192 articles remaining after the removal of duplicates. Primary screening of the title and abstract articles from the database search and additional sources identified 68 relevant articles for full-text screening. This systematic review ultimately used data from 33 articles of the remaining articles we included all of them because they had more than 70% certainty, using the STROBE tool for observational articles, narrative reviews with the ENTREQ guide, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the PRISMA guide; however, two articles were excluded at the eligibility stage because of risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides insightful evidence on safety and effectiveness of ultrasound in diagnosing fractures when compared to the conventional imaging modalities such as X-rays. This shall promote further large-scale, multi-centre research that can eventually guide clinic practice in diagnosing and managing various bone fractures.