Determining when a fracture occurred: Does the method matter? Analysis of the similarity of three different methods for estimating time since fracture of juvenile long bones

Anne Drury (Lead / Corresponding author), Craig Cunningham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

111 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Radiographic fracture date estimation is a critical component of skeletal trauma analysis in the living. Several timetables have been proposed for how the appearance of radiographic features can be interpreted to provide a likely time frame for fracture occurrence. This study compares three such timetables for pediatric fractures, by Islam et al. (2000), Malone et al. (2011), and Prosser et al. (2012), in order to determine whether the fracture date ranges produced by using these methods are in agreement with one another. Fracture date ranges were estimated for 112 long bone fractures in 96 children aged 1-17 years, using the three different timetables. The extent of similarity of the intervals was tested by statistically comparing the overlap between the ranges. Results showed that none of the methods were in perfect agreement with one another. Differences seen included the size of the estimated date range for when a fracture occurred, and the specific dates given for both the upper and lower ends of the fracture date range. There was greater similarity between the ranges produced by Malone et al. (2011) and both the other two studies than there was between Islam et al. (2000) and Prosser et al. (2012). The greatest similarity existed between Malone et al. (2011) and Islam et al. (2000). The extent of differences between methods can vary widely, depending on the fracture analysed. Using one timetable gives an average earliest possible fracture date of less than 2 days before another, but the range was extreme, with one method estimating minimum time since fracture as 25 days before another method for a given fracture. In most cases, one method gave maximum time since fracture as a week less than the other two methods, but range was extreme and some estimates were nearly two months different. The variability in fracture date estimates given by these timetables indicates that caution should be exercised when estimating the timing of a juvenile fracture if relying solely on one of the published guides. Future research should be undertaken to compare these methods on a population of known fracture timing, and to better understand the relationship between age of the individual, skeletal health, fracture healing rates, and radiographic characteristics of fracture healing.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)97-105
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Forensic and Legal Medicine
Volume53
Early online date26 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2018

Fingerprint

Bone and Bones
Islam
Fracture Healing
time
Bone Fractures
trauma
Pediatrics
Health
Wounds and Injuries
health
Population

Keywords

  • Fracture date
  • Fracture healing
  • Fracture timing
  • Healing timelines
  • Juvenile fractures
  • Methodology comparison

Cite this

@article{afc3da58dc314e26aa905963c2811dd2,
title = "Determining when a fracture occurred: Does the method matter? Analysis of the similarity of three different methods for estimating time since fracture of juvenile long bones",
abstract = "Radiographic fracture date estimation is a critical component of skeletal trauma analysis in the living. Several timetables have been proposed for how the appearance of radiographic features can be interpreted to provide a likely time frame for fracture occurrence. This study compares three such timetables for pediatric fractures, by Islam et al. (2000), Malone et al. (2011), and Prosser et al. (2012), in order to determine whether the fracture date ranges produced by using these methods are in agreement with one another. Fracture date ranges were estimated for 112 long bone fractures in 96 children aged 1-17 years, using the three different timetables. The extent of similarity of the intervals was tested by statistically comparing the overlap between the ranges. Results showed that none of the methods were in perfect agreement with one another. Differences seen included the size of the estimated date range for when a fracture occurred, and the specific dates given for both the upper and lower ends of the fracture date range. There was greater similarity between the ranges produced by Malone et al. (2011) and both the other two studies than there was between Islam et al. (2000) and Prosser et al. (2012). The greatest similarity existed between Malone et al. (2011) and Islam et al. (2000). The extent of differences between methods can vary widely, depending on the fracture analysed. Using one timetable gives an average earliest possible fracture date of less than 2 days before another, but the range was extreme, with one method estimating minimum time since fracture as 25 days before another method for a given fracture. In most cases, one method gave maximum time since fracture as a week less than the other two methods, but range was extreme and some estimates were nearly two months different. The variability in fracture date estimates given by these timetables indicates that caution should be exercised when estimating the timing of a juvenile fracture if relying solely on one of the published guides. Future research should be undertaken to compare these methods on a population of known fracture timing, and to better understand the relationship between age of the individual, skeletal health, fracture healing rates, and radiographic characteristics of fracture healing.",
keywords = "Fracture date, Fracture healing, Fracture timing, Healing timelines, Juvenile fractures, Methodology comparison",
author = "Anne Drury and Craig Cunningham",
note = "No funding info",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jflm.2017.11.004",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "97--105",
journal = "Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine",
issn = "1752-928X",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Determining when a fracture occurred

T2 - Does the method matter? Analysis of the similarity of three different methods for estimating time since fracture of juvenile long bones

AU - Drury, Anne

AU - Cunningham, Craig

N1 - No funding info

PY - 2018/1

Y1 - 2018/1

N2 - Radiographic fracture date estimation is a critical component of skeletal trauma analysis in the living. Several timetables have been proposed for how the appearance of radiographic features can be interpreted to provide a likely time frame for fracture occurrence. This study compares three such timetables for pediatric fractures, by Islam et al. (2000), Malone et al. (2011), and Prosser et al. (2012), in order to determine whether the fracture date ranges produced by using these methods are in agreement with one another. Fracture date ranges were estimated for 112 long bone fractures in 96 children aged 1-17 years, using the three different timetables. The extent of similarity of the intervals was tested by statistically comparing the overlap between the ranges. Results showed that none of the methods were in perfect agreement with one another. Differences seen included the size of the estimated date range for when a fracture occurred, and the specific dates given for both the upper and lower ends of the fracture date range. There was greater similarity between the ranges produced by Malone et al. (2011) and both the other two studies than there was between Islam et al. (2000) and Prosser et al. (2012). The greatest similarity existed between Malone et al. (2011) and Islam et al. (2000). The extent of differences between methods can vary widely, depending on the fracture analysed. Using one timetable gives an average earliest possible fracture date of less than 2 days before another, but the range was extreme, with one method estimating minimum time since fracture as 25 days before another method for a given fracture. In most cases, one method gave maximum time since fracture as a week less than the other two methods, but range was extreme and some estimates were nearly two months different. The variability in fracture date estimates given by these timetables indicates that caution should be exercised when estimating the timing of a juvenile fracture if relying solely on one of the published guides. Future research should be undertaken to compare these methods on a population of known fracture timing, and to better understand the relationship between age of the individual, skeletal health, fracture healing rates, and radiographic characteristics of fracture healing.

AB - Radiographic fracture date estimation is a critical component of skeletal trauma analysis in the living. Several timetables have been proposed for how the appearance of radiographic features can be interpreted to provide a likely time frame for fracture occurrence. This study compares three such timetables for pediatric fractures, by Islam et al. (2000), Malone et al. (2011), and Prosser et al. (2012), in order to determine whether the fracture date ranges produced by using these methods are in agreement with one another. Fracture date ranges were estimated for 112 long bone fractures in 96 children aged 1-17 years, using the three different timetables. The extent of similarity of the intervals was tested by statistically comparing the overlap between the ranges. Results showed that none of the methods were in perfect agreement with one another. Differences seen included the size of the estimated date range for when a fracture occurred, and the specific dates given for both the upper and lower ends of the fracture date range. There was greater similarity between the ranges produced by Malone et al. (2011) and both the other two studies than there was between Islam et al. (2000) and Prosser et al. (2012). The greatest similarity existed between Malone et al. (2011) and Islam et al. (2000). The extent of differences between methods can vary widely, depending on the fracture analysed. Using one timetable gives an average earliest possible fracture date of less than 2 days before another, but the range was extreme, with one method estimating minimum time since fracture as 25 days before another method for a given fracture. In most cases, one method gave maximum time since fracture as a week less than the other two methods, but range was extreme and some estimates were nearly two months different. The variability in fracture date estimates given by these timetables indicates that caution should be exercised when estimating the timing of a juvenile fracture if relying solely on one of the published guides. Future research should be undertaken to compare these methods on a population of known fracture timing, and to better understand the relationship between age of the individual, skeletal health, fracture healing rates, and radiographic characteristics of fracture healing.

KW - Fracture date

KW - Fracture healing

KW - Fracture timing

KW - Healing timelines

KW - Juvenile fractures

KW - Methodology comparison

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85037700437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jflm.2017.11.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jflm.2017.11.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 29227827

VL - 53

SP - 97

EP - 105

JO - Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine

JF - Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine

SN - 1752-928X

ER -