Table 3

Overview of the results of the included studies

Results of testingBache and Cross 7Moore6Lesho9Kazemi and Roscoe2Dissmann and Han8Wilder et al10
Type of tuning fork128 Hz128 Hz128 Hz128 Hz256 Hz128 Hz TLM128 Hz DFS128 Hz256 Hz512 Hz
Prevalence of fractures56%32%61%80%80%10%10%27%27%27%
Sensitivity (%; 95% CI)91 (81 to 96)83 (55 to 95)75 (57 to 87)89 (75 to 96)89 (75 to 96)92 (52 to 99)92 (52 to 99)83 (55 to 95)92 (67 to 99)77 (49 to 92)
Specificity (%; 95% CI)18 (9 to 32)80 (61 to 91)67 (44 to 84)44 (19 to 73)44 (19 to 73)61 (46 to 74)94 (84 to 98)37 (23 to 55)19 (9 to 36)64 (47 to 79)
Diagnostic OR2.3 (0.7 to 7.5)20.0 (3.3 to 122)6.0 (1.6 to 22)6.6 (1.2 to 35.2)6.6 (1.2 to 35.2)17.3 (0.9 to 332)187.0 (7.9 to 4424)3.0 (0.6 to 16.1)2.9 (0.3 to 26.7)6.1 (1.4 to 26.7)
Positive likelihood ratio (95% CI)1.1 (0.94 to 1.3)4.2 (1.8 to 9.5)2.2 (1.1 to 4.5)1.6 (0.89 to 2.9)1.6 (0.89 to 2.91)2.4 (1.5 to 3.7)16.5 (4.8 to 56)1.3 (0.92 to 1.9)1.1 (0.91 to 1.4)2.2 (1.2 to 3.8)
Negative likelihood ratio (95% CI)0.49 (0.17 to 1.4)0.21 (0.06 to 0.75)0.37 (0.18 to 0.77)0.24 (0.08 to 0.79)0.24 (0.08 to 0.79)0.14 (0.01 to 2.0)0.09 (0.01 to 1.3)0.45 (0.12 to 1.7)0.39 (0.05 to 3.0)0.36 (0.13 to 0.99)
  • TLM, tip of lateral malleolus; DFS, distal fibula shaft.