↓ Skip to main content

The acutely injured acromioclavicular joint – which imaging modalities should be used for accurate diagnosis? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The acutely injured acromioclavicular joint – which imaging modalities should be used for accurate diagnosis? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1864-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas Pogorzelski, Knut Beitzel, Francesco Ranuccio, Klaus Wörtler, Andreas B. Imhoff, Peter J. Millett, Sepp Braun

Abstract

The management of acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries depends on the degree of injury diagnosed by the Rockwood classification. Inadequate imaging and not selecting the most helpful imaging protocols can often lead to incorrect diagnosis of the injury. A consensus on a diagnostic imaging protocol for acute AC joint injuries does not currently exist. Therefore we conducted a systematic review of the literature considering three diagnostic parameters for patients with acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries: 1) Assessment of vertical instability; 2) Assessment of horizontal instability; 3) Benefit of weighted panoramic views. Internet databases were searched in March 2016 using the terms ("AC joint" OR "acromioclavicular joint") AND (MRI OR MR OR radiograph OR X-ray OR Xray OR ultrasound OR "computer tomography" OR "computed tomography" OR CT). Diagnostic, prospective, retrospective, cohort and cross- sectional studies were included to compare their use of different radiological methods. Case reports, cadaveric studies, and studies concerning chronic AC injuries and clinical outcomes were excluded. This search returned 1359 citations of which 1151 were excluded based on title, 116 based on abstract and 75 based on manuscript. 17 studies were included for review and were analyzed for their contributions to the three parameters of interest mentioned above. The inter- and intra-observer reliability for diagnosing vertical instabilities of the clavicle using x-ray alone show a high level of reproducibility while for horizontal instabilities the values were much more variable. In general, digitally measured parameters seem to be more precise and reliable between investigators than visual classification alone. Currently, evidence for the value of weighted views and other additional diagnostic imaging to supplement standard x-rays is controversial. To date there is no consensus on a gold standard for diagnostic measures needed to classify acute AC joint injuries. The inter- and intra-observer reliability for diagnosing vertical instabilities of the clavicle using bilateral projections show a high level of reproducibility while for horizontal instabilities the results are much more inconsistent. There is currently no clear consensus on a protocol for image-based diagnosis and classification of acute AC joint injuries, leading to a lack of confidence in reproducibility and reliability.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 9 14%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Unknown 20 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#10,875,495
of 12,271,192 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,224
of 2,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,001
of 343,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#121
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,271,192 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.