Systematic review of the diagnostic role of ultrasonography in maxillofacial fracture

I read the recent publication by Adeyemo et al. entitled ‘A systematic review of the diagnostic role of ultrasonography in maxillofacial fractures’ with great interest. There are two points that is important for me. The first is that my correct name is Afshin Mohammadi, but Adeyemo et al. write my name as Muhammadi which is incorrect. The second more important point is that the reference value of our study was conventional radiography. In our article entitled ‘Comparison of ultrasonography and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures’ , we compared the results of high resolution sonography and conventional radiography with clinical exam but not with each other. We concluded that, of 103 fracture lines in patients with a clinically diagnosed nasal bone fracture, conventional radiography was detected in 80, whilst ultrasonography was detected in 90 fractures. The sensitivity of ultrasonography and conventional radiography in comparison with clinical exam was 90.2% and 77.6%, respectively, and the specificity was 98.5% and 82%, respectively.

Funding

None.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Jan 26, 2018 | Posted by in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Comments Off on Systematic review of the diagnostic role of ultrasonography in maxillofacial fracture
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes