Assessment of bone mineral density (BMD) with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is a well-established clinical technique, but it is not available in the acute trauma setting. Thus, it cannot provide a preoperative estimation of BMD to help guide the technique of fracture fixation. Alternative methods that have been suggested for assessing BMD include: 1) cortical measures, such as cortical ratios and combined cortical scores; and 2) aluminium grading systems from preoperative digital radiographs. However, limited research has been performed in this area to validate the different methods. The aim of this study was to investigate the evaluation of BMD from digital radiographs by comparing various methods against DXA scanning. A total of 54 patients with distal radial fractures were included in the study. Each underwent posteroanterior (PA) and lateral radiographs of the injured wrist with an aluminium step wedge. Overall 27 patients underwent routine DXA scanning of the hip and lumbar spine, with 13 undergoing additional DXA scanning of the uninjured forearm. Analysis of radiographs was performed on ImageJ and Matlab with calculations of cortical measures, cortical indices, combined cortical scores, and aluminium equivalent grading.Aims
Methods
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies.Objectives
Methods
