PURPOSE: To compare the performance of the @entity27500 ( @entity27500 ) with nuclear scintigraphy for the identification of @entity1642 . METHODS: Fifty-two @entity1 with a history and physical examination suggestive of @entity1642 underwent a @entity27500 followed by a bone scan. The @entity27500 was performed by applying a 128-Hz tuning fork to the anterior surface of the bared tibia. If the @entity1 reported a marked exacerbation or reproduction of shin @entity158 in a localized area of the tibia, the @entity27500 was considered positive. All @entity1 also underwent a bilateral lower-extremity bone scan. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the @entity27500 were 75 and 67%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 77 and 63%, respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals were 2.33 (1.17-4.60) and 0.34 (0.16-0.71), respectively. CONCLUSION: The @entity27500 is not sensitive enough to rule out a stress @entity174 on the basis of a negative test. However, in a setting in which there is a moderate to high pretest likelihood of @entity1642 , such as military installations with new basic training recruits, it may be reasonable to avoid the cost and delays associated with nuclear imaging by instituting treatment for @entity1642 without obtaining a bone scan when the @entity27500 is positive.

Can tuning forks replace bone scans for identification of XXXX ?

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity174 :: ('MESH:D050723', 'Disease') :: ['fracture'] @entity158 :: ('MESH:D010146', 'Disease') :: ['pain'] @entity1642 :: ('MESH:D015775', 'Disease') :: ['tibial stress fractures', 'stress fractures', 'tibial stress fracture'] @entity27500 :: ('MESH:C566019', 'Disease') :: ['tuning fork test', 'TFT']
@entity1642 :: (MESH:D015775,Disease) :: ['tibial stress fractures']
