Is
there sufficient evidence for tuning fork tests in diagnosing fractures? A
systematic review
there sufficient evidence for tuning fork tests in diagnosing fractures? A
systematic review
Mugunthan K, Doust J, Kurz B, and Glasziou P. BMJ Open. 2014. 4.
Take
Home Message: The use of a tuning fork in ruling out fractures is not currently
recommended due to low diagnostic accuracy. Little clinical standards, low
study quality and small sample size limits the results therefore more
standardization and training should be done to improve its clinical efficiency.
Home Message: The use of a tuning fork in ruling out fractures is not currently
recommended due to low diagnostic accuracy. Little clinical standards, low
study quality and small sample size limits the results therefore more
standardization and training should be done to improve its clinical efficiency.
In some situations radiographic imaging
is not readily available and clinicians must attempt to assess an injury with
other tools such as a tuning fork. Unfortunately, the diagnostic accuracy of
tuning forks is not known. Therefore, Mugunthan and colleagues completed a
systematic review to determine the diagnostic accuracy of tuning forks for assessing
fracture. Researchers assessed 2 methods of tuning fork tests, (1) induction of
pain and (2) transmission of sound. A literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL,
AMED, EMBASE, Sports Discus, CAB Abstracts and Web of Science was performed and
62 articles were identified. All included articles assessed the diagnostic accuracy
of the tuning fork tests and used a standard objective reference standard
(x-ray, bone scan). Following screening, the authors eliminated 56 articles,
leaving 6 for quality assessment. In 5 out of 6 of the studies the authors
focused on primarily on adults. The authors of the 6 papers evaluated any
suspected fracture (2 papers, femoral neck fractures (1 study), ankle inversion
injuries (1 study), and stress fractures (2 studies). In 4 studies, the authors
used pain induction to assess fractures, and 2 in studies the authors used
sound conduction. Sensitivity and specificity of the tuning fork tests was 75-92%
and 18-94%; respectively. Overall study quality of the 6 included studies was
considered “modest.”
is not readily available and clinicians must attempt to assess an injury with
other tools such as a tuning fork. Unfortunately, the diagnostic accuracy of
tuning forks is not known. Therefore, Mugunthan and colleagues completed a
systematic review to determine the diagnostic accuracy of tuning forks for assessing
fracture. Researchers assessed 2 methods of tuning fork tests, (1) induction of
pain and (2) transmission of sound. A literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL,
AMED, EMBASE, Sports Discus, CAB Abstracts and Web of Science was performed and
62 articles were identified. All included articles assessed the diagnostic accuracy
of the tuning fork tests and used a standard objective reference standard
(x-ray, bone scan). Following screening, the authors eliminated 56 articles,
leaving 6 for quality assessment. In 5 out of 6 of the studies the authors
focused on primarily on adults. The authors of the 6 papers evaluated any
suspected fracture (2 papers, femoral neck fractures (1 study), ankle inversion
injuries (1 study), and stress fractures (2 studies). In 4 studies, the authors
used pain induction to assess fractures, and 2 in studies the authors used
sound conduction. Sensitivity and specificity of the tuning fork tests was 75-92%
and 18-94%; respectively. Overall study quality of the 6 included studies was
considered “modest.”
The current systematic review is
interesting to clinicians who render emergency care, such as athletic trainers,
because the possibility of a cost-effective clinical test to detect fractures
is of great interest. Unfortunately, tuning forks may not be accurate enough to
warrant integration into clinical practice. This supports a previous systematic review that we’ve described. However, it should be noted that
the sensitivity of the tuning fork shows that this test may have some ability
to rule out fractures, however it is not sensitive enough to warrant widespread
use. It is also curious that the specificity had a large range among the six
studies. Overall, this could lead to a high rate of false-positive results but
it would be interesting to learn more about when tuning forks had good
specificity. For example, the specificity of tuning forks was worst in the
study with suspected femoral neck fractures (18%) and best when investigators
evaluated ankle inversion injuries (94%). It would be helpful if future
research clarified if and when tuning forks may be beneficial and if clinicians
need specific training to optimize the test results. Perhaps if clinical
procedure were developed and improved, the sensitivity would also improve. Ultimately,
more research and standardization should be developed and studied, before
tuning forks are used widely in a clinical setting.
interesting to clinicians who render emergency care, such as athletic trainers,
because the possibility of a cost-effective clinical test to detect fractures
is of great interest. Unfortunately, tuning forks may not be accurate enough to
warrant integration into clinical practice. This supports a previous systematic review that we’ve described. However, it should be noted that
the sensitivity of the tuning fork shows that this test may have some ability
to rule out fractures, however it is not sensitive enough to warrant widespread
use. It is also curious that the specificity had a large range among the six
studies. Overall, this could lead to a high rate of false-positive results but
it would be interesting to learn more about when tuning forks had good
specificity. For example, the specificity of tuning forks was worst in the
study with suspected femoral neck fractures (18%) and best when investigators
evaluated ankle inversion injuries (94%). It would be helpful if future
research clarified if and when tuning forks may be beneficial and if clinicians
need specific training to optimize the test results. Perhaps if clinical
procedure were developed and improved, the sensitivity would also improve. Ultimately,
more research and standardization should be developed and studied, before
tuning forks are used widely in a clinical setting.
Questions for Discussion:
Do you currently use a tuning fork in your clinical practice? If so, which of
the diagnostic methods do you use and how accurate do you feel it is?
Do you currently use a tuning fork in your clinical practice? If so, which of
the diagnostic methods do you use and how accurate do you feel it is?
Written by: Kyle Harris
Reviewed by: Jeffrey Driban
Related Posts:
Mugunthan, K., Doust, J., Kurz, B., & Glasziou, P. (2014). Is there sufficient evidence for tuning fork tests in diagnosing fractures? A systematic review BMJ Open, 4 (8) DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005238