Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings for midfacial fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Clinical oral investigations Vol. 26; no. 4; pp. 3405 - 3427
• Main Authors: Rozema, Romke, Doff, Michiel H. J., Delli, Konstantina, Spijkervet, Frederik K. L., van Minnen, Baucke
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-04-2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Accuracy; Computed tomography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dentistry; Fractures, Bone; Health care; Humans; Ionizing radiation; Medicine; Meta-analysis; Patients; Physical Examination; Quality control; Review; Sensitivity and Specificity; Systematic review; Tomography; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Sensitivity and specificity; Systematic review; Maxillofacial fractures; Systematic review [Publication Type]; Physical examination; X-ray computed; Emergency service; Cone beam computed tomography; Computed tomography; Diagnostic accuracy; Physical examination findings; Hospital; Cone-beam computed tomography; Maxillofacial injuries
• ISSN: 1436-3771; 1432-6981; 1436-3771
• DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04423-y

Objectives
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings and related clinical decision aids for midfacial fractures in comparison to computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography.
Material and methods
A systematic review was performed by searching the MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each physical examination finding and reported clinical decision aids.
Results
After screening 2367 records, 12 studies were included. High risk of patient selection bias was detected in three studies (25%). Additionally, high concerns regarding applicability were found for the patient selection in five studies (41.7%), and for the reference standard in eleven studies (91.7%). Of the total 42 individual physical examination findings, only 31 were suitable for a meta-analysis. High specificity and low sensitivity were found for most findings. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 1.07 to 11.38. Clinical decision aids were reported by 8 studies, but none were constructed specifically for midfacial fractures.
Conclusion
Based on the current available evidence, the absence of physical examination findings can successfully identify patients who do not have a midfacial fracture, but the presence of individual findings does not necessarily mean that the patient has a midfacial fracture. Although various clinical decision aids were presented, none focused on exclusively midfacial fractures.
Clinical relevance
The diagnostic accuracy of physical examination findings can be used to diagnose a midfacial fracture so as to reduce unnecessary imaging, health care costs, and exposure to ionizing radiation.