PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 8, 2026Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research0 citationsOpen Access

Artificial intelligence in virtual fracture clinics: a systematic review of imaging and clinical-text tools

TSTenghis SukhbaatarADAndrew DaviesAKAran Koye

Key Points

  • This review aims to assess the potential and effectiveness of AI systems using imaging and clinical text data in virtual fracture clinics.
  • Conducted a systematic review of existing studies from MEDLINE and Embase from 2010 to 2025.
  • Included studies focused on AI for imaging via X-rays and natural language processing for clinical documentation.
  • Performed a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity of the tools.
  • Reviewed 54 studies, with 52 focused on imaging and 2 on clinical text analysis.
  • Commercial imaging tools showed a pooled sensitivity of 92.58% for limb tools and 89.95% for wrist tools.
  • Researcher-developed models often reported better sensitivity than commercial tools.

Abstract

Abstract Background Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are a well-established component of acute orthopedic management pathways. Artificial intelligence (AI) healthcare tools are increasingly sophisticated and have the potential to disrupt current practices. The aim of this review was to determine the opportunities, performance and readiness of AI systems that integrate clinical-text and imaging data for the triage or management of patients in VFCs. Methods A search of MEDLINE and Embase was performed between January 2010 and July 2025. The review included primary research studies investigating AI for fracture detection via X-rays and natural language processing (NLP) models for clinical documentation. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity, stratified by anatomical region and developer type (commercial vs. researcher-developed). Results We included 54 studies: 52 imaging/X-ray studies and 2 NLP/clinical-text studies. Among the imaging studies, 13 evaluated commercial tools, and 39 evaluated researcher-developed models. There were 2 NLP models, both of which interpreted radiology reports rather than text summaries of clinical assessments. No studies that included the use of NLP models in acute orthopedic care could be found. A meta-analysis of commercial tools ( n = 11) demonstrated a pooled sensitivity across both multiregional “Limb” tools of 92.58% (95% CI 90.61–94.17%) and anatomy-specific “Wrist” tools of 89.95% (95% CI 72.18–96.86%). Wrist-specific commercial tools demonstrated higher specificity (96.80%; 95% CI 90.12–99.01%) compared to general limb tools (89.69%; 95% CI 84.02–93.51%), suggesting that anatomical targeting may reduce the number of false positives. Researcher-developed models ( n = 32) often reported superior metrics for sensitivity compared to the sensitivity of commercial tools. Conclusions VFCs require the integration of information from imaging and patient records. Multiple image interpretation tools are available with high performance in fracture identification. The development and integration of NLP tools to interpret clinical documentation from emergency departments and urgent care centers are necessary for AI-VFC.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sukhbaatar et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6988292d0fc35cd7a88495adhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-025-06656-5
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper