What is the Role of Point of Care Ultrasound for Suspected Pulled Elbow in Children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Our objective was to evaluate and appraise the existing evidence on the use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for pulled elbow, including its positive findings and their reliability. Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Google Scholar for prospective and retrospective studies evaluating POCUS use for suspected pulled elbow. We identified positive sonographic findings along with their sensitivity and specificity relating to this diagnosis. Results: We included 13 studies that reviewed ultrasonographic findings in suspected pulled elbow. These studies discussed a range of sonographic findings between them, including radio- capitellar distance, 'J-sign'/'Hook sign', fat pad sign and partial eclipse sign. The studies were of mixed quality and were susceptible to bias. Conclusions: Children presenting with suspected pulled elbow who have evidence of hook sign (or J-sign) and an absence of elbow effusion on POCUS can be diagnosed with pulled elbow and safely undergo reduction. POCUS can be used following reduction to demonstrate resolution of these signs and confirm its success. Elbow injuries with effusion are likely to have bony injury, meaning that X-ray is required. Additional prospective study of children presenting with elbow injury would be required to accurately determine the effectiveness of POCUS in the diagnosis of pulled elbow.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".