Diagnostic Imaging Pathways Logo

  • Pathways
  • Normal Anatomy
  • Medical Images
  • Radiation Module
  • Radiation Quiz
  • Menu
  • Search

Stress fracture (suspected)

Population Covered By The Guidance

This pathway provides guidance on the imaging of adult patients with suspected stress fractures.

Lead Researcher: Charlotte Humphries

Experts & Contributors: Ashley Bennett (images), Eamon Koh, Michael Mason

Date reviewed: August 2013

Date Published: August 2013

Image 1a (Plain Radiography): Normal x-ray in 18 yo male with medial tibial pain.

Suspected Stress Fracture

Image 1b (Bone Scan): Delayed phase of bone scan showing focal uptake in the posteromedial cortex typical of a stress fracture (arrow).

Suspected Stress Fracture

  • Plain radiographs are the initial imaging modality of choice, but are limited due to their inability to detect bony changes early in the development of a stress fracture
  • Early radiographs are often normal. Consider repeat plain radiography at 10-14 days
  • MRI is the most sensitive and specific investigation to diagnose a stress fracture when radiographs are normal or equivocal and can best evaluate for other differential diagnoses
  • Scintigraphy has high sensitivity for stress fracture but poorer specificity, and is associated with ionising radiation exposure. It is an alternative when MRI is contraindicated or unavailable
  • CT can be helpful as an alternative to MRI to demonstrate bony changes but is less sensitive

Date of literature search: April 2013

The search methodology is available on request. Email

References are graded from Level I to V according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Levels of Evidence. Download the document

  1. Boden BP, Osbahr DC. High-risk stress fractures: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8(6):344-53. (Review article)
  2. Kaeding CC, Yu JR, Wright R, Amendola A, Spindler KP. Management and return to play of stress fractures. Clin J Sport Med. 2005;15(6):442-7. (Review article)
  3. Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging:, Daffner RH, Weissman BN, Appel M, Bancroft L, Bennett DL, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria: stress (fatigue/insufficiency) fracture, including sacrum, excluding other vertebrae. American College of Radiology; 2011 [cited 2013 April 1]. (Evidence based guideline) View the reference
  4. Kiuru MJ, Pihlajamaki HK, Hietanen HJ, Ahovuo JA. MR imaging, bone scintigraphy, and radiography in bone stress injuries of the pelvis and the lower extremity. Acta Radiologica. 2002;43(2):207-12. (Level II/III evidence)
  5. Kijowski R, Choi J, Mukharjee R, de Smet A. Significance of radiographic abnormalities in patients with tibial stress injuries: correlation with magnetic resonance imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2007;36(7):633-40. (Level III evidence)
  6. Giladi M, Ziv Y, Aharonson Z, Nili E, Danon YL. Comparison between radiography, bone scan and ultrasound in the diagnosis of stress fractures. Mil Med. 1984;149(8):459-61. (Review article)
  7. Fredericson M, Bergman AG, Hoffman KL, Dillingham MS. Tibial stress reaction in runners - correlation of clinical symptoms and scintigraphy with a new magnetic resonance imaging grading system. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(4):472-81. (Level III evidence)
  8. Anderson MW, Greenspan A. Stress fractures. Radiology. 1996;199(1):1-12. (Review article)
  9. Zwas ST, Elkanovitch R, Frank G. Interpretation and classification of bone scintigraphic findings in stress fractures. J Nucl Med. 1987;28(4):452-7. (Level III evidence)
  10. Geslien GE, Thrall JH, Espinosa JL, Older RA. Early detection of stress fractures using 99mTc-polyphosphate. Radiology. 1976;121(3 Pt. 1):683-7. (Level III evidence)
  11. Greaney RB, Gerber FH, Laughlin RL, Kmet JP, Metz CD, Kilcheski TS, et al. Distribution and natural history of stress fractures in United States marine recruits. Radiology. 1983;146(2):339-46. (Level II evidence)
  12. Courtenay BG, Bowers DM. Stress-fractures - clinical features and investigation. Med J Aust. 1990;153(3):155-6. (Level IV evidence)
  13. Matheson GO, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, Taunton JE, Lloydsmith DR, Macintyre JG. Stress fractures in athletes - a study of 320 cases. Am J Sports Med. 1987;15(1):46-58. (Level III evidence)
  14. Prather JL, Nusynowitz ML, Snowdy HA, Hughes AD, McCartney WH, Bagg RJ. Scintigraphic findings in stress fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977;59(7):869-74. (Level III/IV evidence)
  15. Shin AY, Morin WD, Gorman JD, Jones SB, Lapinsky AS. The superiority of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating the cause of hip pain in endurance athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(2):168-76. (Level III evidence)
  16. Rizzo PF, Gould ES, Lyden JP, Asnis SE. Diagnosis of occult fractures about the hip - magnetic-resonance imaging compared with bone-scanning. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75A(3):395-401. (Level II evidence)
  17. Gaeta M, Minutoli F, Scribano E, Ascenti G, Vinci S, Bruschetta D, et al. CT and MR imaging findings in athletes with early tibial stress injuries: comparison with bone scintigraphy findings and emphasis on cortical abnormalities. Radiology. 2005;235(2):553-61. (Level II evidence)
  18. Deutsch AL, Mink JH, Waxman AD. Occult fractures of the proximal femur - MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;170(1):113-16. (Level III evidence)
  19. Dobrindt O, Hoffmeyer B, Ruf J, Seidensticker M, Steffen IG, Zarva A, et al. MRI versus bone scintigraphy. Evaluation for diagnosis and grading of stress injuries. Nuklearmedizin. 2012;51(3):88-94. (Level II/III evidence)
  20. Ishibashi Y, Okamura Y, Otsuka H, Nishizawa K, Sasaki T, Toh S. Comparison of scintigraphy and magnetic resonance imaging for stress injuries of bone. Clin J Sports Med. 2002;12(2):79-84. (Level III evidence)
  21. Fayad L, Kawamoto S, Kamel I, Bluemke D, Eng J, Frassica F, et al. Distinction of long bone stress fractures from pathologic fractures on cross-sectional imaging: how successful are we? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(4):915-24. (Level II/III evidence)
  22. Miller T, Kaeding CC, Flanigan D. The classification systems of stress fractures: a systematic review. Phys Sportsmed. 2011;39(1):93-100. (Level I/II evidence)
  23. Arendt EA, Griffiths HJ. The use of MR imaging in the assessment and clinical management of stress reactions of bone in high-performance athletes. Clin Sports Med. 1997;16(2):291-306. (Review article)
  24. Yao L, Johnson C, Gentili A, Lee JK, Seeger LL. Stress injuries of bone: analysis of MR imaging staging criteria. Acad Radiol. 1998;5(1):34-40. (Level III evidence)
  25. Shikare S, Samsi AB, Tilve GH. Bone imaging in sports medicine. J Postgrad Med. 1997;43(3):71-2. (Level IV evidence)
  26. Matin P. Appearance of bone scans following fractures, including immediate and long-term studies. J Nucl Med. 1979;20(12):1227-31. (Level II evidence)
  27. Bryant LR, Song WS, Banks KP, Bui-Mansfield LT, Bradley YC. Comparison of planar scintigraphy alone and with SPECT for the initial evaluation of femoral neck stress fracture. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(4):1010-5. (Level III evidence)
  28. Diehl J, Best T, Kaeding C. Classification and return-to-play considerations for stress fractures. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(1):17-28, vii. (Review article)
  29. Groves AM, Cheow HK, Balan KK, Housden BA, Bearcroft PWP, Dixon AK. 16-Detector multislice CT in the detection of stress fractures: a comparison with skeletal scintigraphy. Clin Radiol. 2005;60(10):1100-5. (Level III evidence)
  30. Cabarrus MC, Ambekar A, Lu Y, Link TM. MRI and CT of insufficiency fractures of the pelvis and the proximal femur. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(4):995-1001. (Level III evidence)
  31. Shearman CM, Brandser EA, Parman LM, El-Khoury GY, Saltzman CL, Pyevich MT, et al. Longitudinal tibial stress fractures: a report of eight cases and review of the literature. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22(2):265-9. (Review article)
  32. Banal F, Gandjbakhch F, Foltz V, Goldcher A, Etchepare F, Rozenberg S, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography in early diagnosis of metatarsal bone stress fractures: a pilot study of 37 patients. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(8):1715-9. (Level III evidence)
  33. Boam WD, Miser WF, Yuill SC, Delaplain CB, Gayle EL, MacDonald DC. Comparison of ultrasound examination with bone scintiscan in the diagnosis of stress fractures.. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1996;9(6):414-7. (Level III evidence)
  34. Schneiders AG, Sullivan SJ, Hendrick PA, Hones BDGM, McMaster AR, Sugden BA, et al. The ability of clinical tests to diagnose stress fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(9):760-71. (Level I evidence)

Pathway User Guide

Yellow Boxes Denotes extra information. Some contain single or multiple white sub-boxes, click a white box to reveal detailed information in a pop-up.

White Boxes: Denotes standard pathway steps. (If inside a yellow box, they open a specific pop-up).

Zoom & Pan Controls: Use + / − or the slider to zoom. Reset returns to default. Tick Panning to drag the diagram when zoomed.

Blue “View Full Screen” Button: Opens the whole diagram in a large, full-screen pop-up window. Use Close to exit.

The relative radiation level (RRL) of each imaging investigation is displayed in the pop up box.

SYMBOL RRL EFFECTIVE DOSE RANGE
No radiation None 0
Minimal radiation Minimal < 1 millisieverts
Low radiation Low 1-5 mSv
Medium radiation Medium 5-10 mSv
High radiation High >10 mSv

Disclaimer

Status Of Recommendations Each pathway is designed to assist clinicians in situations when faced with a large array of possible diagnostic tests and examinations. However, it is recognised that diagnostic practice may differ from a particular pathway depending on local availability of equipment and expertise, as well as the experience of individual clinicians. Therefore each pathway is neither a rigid set of rules, nor a substitute for clinical assessment, and individual patient circumstances should always be considered.

Report an Issue

Spotted an error or outdated info? Click to tell us.

prolonged duration of symptoms, clinical situation warrants Date reviewed: August 2013Please note that this pathwayis subject to review andrevision MRI Repeat PlainRadiography after 10 - 14 days 3-Phase Bone Scan CT Plain Radiographs High risk location, Clinical diagnosis and conservativemanagement may be appropriate Negative Lower risk Positive Treat Treat Positive MRI unavailable orcontraindicated Useful in selectedclinicalcircumstances Serial radiographsnegative, ongoingclinical concern Need for definitive diagnosis STRESS FRACTURE (SUSPECTED)

Plain Radiographs

Plain radiographs

Initial imaging modality of choice for detection of suspected stress fractures.

  • Initial imaging modality of choice for detection of suspected stress fractures
  • Highly specific (~96%) but poorly sensitive (~56%), limiting accuracy (~67%)
    • When plain radiographs demonstrate changes consistent with stress fracture, such as linear cortical radiolucency or localised periosteal reaction , no further imaging is indicated
    • Early radiographs are often normal or nonspecific. The lag time between manifestation of initial symptoms and detection of radiographic findings ranges from 1 week to several months
    • Radiographs may be negative initially in 60-90% of patients and remain negative in 40-60% of stress fractures ,
  • If the plain radiographs are normal or non-diagnostic, options include
    • Treat the patient for a presumed fracture and repeat radiography in 2-3 weeks. The American College of Radiology Expert Panel suggest repeat radiography in 10-14 days
  • If definitive diagnosis is needed, further investigate with MRI (preferred over bone scan due to higher specificity and absence of ionising radiation)

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging

Comparable sensitivity but superior specificity to that of bone scan for detection of bone abnormalities, without ionizing radiation.

  • Comparable sensitivity and superior specificity to that of bone scan for detection of bone abnormalities ,,
  • Aids in differentiating pathologic fractures from stress and insufficiency fractures and superior soft tissue visualisation aids in differential diagnosis of pain
  • Multiple classification systems for stress fractures have been developed to evaluate stress fractures and a ‘gold standard’ is yet to be developed Two four-stage grading scales using MRI have been published
    • Arendt and Griffiths’ scale has been used for the femur, tibia, fibular, navicular, calcaneus and forefoot and has prognostic implications regarding time of healing
    • Fredericson and colleagues’ scale was developed using tibia data, and found presence of a fracture or cortical abnormality opposed to oedema alone predicted a longer symptomatic period in runners. These findings were not replicated in a more heterogeneous study population

Three-Phase Bone Scintigraphy

Three-phase bone scan

If phases 1, 2, and 3 are positive a recent fracture is likely while if only phase 3 is positive the fracture is likely to be less recent.

  • A radiotracer (e.g. 99-Technetium-MDP) is injected into a vein after which a series of images are taken immediately (dynamic phase, demonstrating perfusion to a lesion), shortly after the injection (blood pool phase) and again 3-4 hours later (demonstrating relative bone turnover associated with a lesion)
  • High sensitivity (~100%) for stress fractures. ,,, 80% of all fractures show some scan abnormality 24 hours post-injury and 95% at 72 hours. Classical findings include focally intense and fusiform cortical uptake
  • The addition of SPECT to planar scintigraphy improves accuracy
  • Less specific than MRI. False positives can occur in osteoid osteoma, osteomyelitis, or metastatic disease ,
  • Not as useful in follow-up care as uptake can persist for months after clinical healing
  • Due to the radiation exposure and poorer specificity, the role of bone scintigraphy should be reserved to exclude a radiographically occult fracture in patients unable to undergo MRI or after an inconclusive MRI examination

Computed Tomography

Computed tomography

  • Provides superior depiction of the osseous anatomy of stress fractures
  • Less sensitive than MRI or bone scan. Useful to further define abnormalities found on other modalities.

  • Less sensitive than bone scintigraphy or MRI in the detection of stress fractures ,,, but may better define an abnormality discovered with another modality and have played a role in the diagnosis of longitudinal fractures
  • CT may occasionally depict osteopaenia, the earliest finding of a cortical stress injury, in symptomatic patients with normal MRI findings
  • May be useful in follow-up evaluation of healing in radiographically-occult fractures

Ultrasound

  • While less accurate than MRI, use of ultrasound to evaluate stress fractures in the metatarsal bones has been evaluated with a reported 83% sensitivity and 76% specificity, compared to MRI as the gold standard
  • Performance has been poor in more common sites of stress fracture ,
  • Further studies are needed to determine the role of ultrasound in the evaluation of stress fracture

Suspected stress fracture

Suspected stress fracture

Common sites for stress fracture include the calcaneus, pelvis, tibia, metatarsals and vertebral bodies.

High risk locations

High risk locations

Fractures that are predominantly loaded in tension or have serious sequelae from under-treatment e.g. femoral neck, patella, anterior tibial diaphysis, medial malleolus, talus, tarsal navicular, 5th metatarsal, sesamoids1,2

Need for a definitive diagnosis

Need for a definitive diagnosis

Eg. Elite athletes, military personnel, elderly people with osteoporosis, patients at risk of sinister differential diagnoses, work-related injuries.

Plain Radiographs

Repeat plain radiographs

The fracture line may be more apparent after 7-10 days. A cast should be applied at initial assessment if appropriate.

  • Initial imaging modality of choice for detection of suspected stress fractures
  • Highly specific (~96%) but poorly sensitive (~56%), limiting accuracy (~67%)
    • When plain radiographs demonstrate changes consistent with stress fracture, such as linear cortical radiolucency or localised periosteal reaction , no further imaging is indicated
    • Early radiographs are often normal or nonspecific. The lag time between manifestation of initial symptoms and detection of radiographic findings ranges from 1 week to several months
    • Radiographs may be negative initially in 60-90% of patients and remain negative in 40-60% of stress fractures ,
  • If the plain radiographs are normal or non-diagnostic, options include
    • Treat the patient for a presumed fracture and repeat radiography in 2-3 weeks. The American College of Radiology Expert Panel suggest repeat radiography in 10-14 days
  • If definitive diagnosis is needed, further investigate with MRI (preferred over bone scan due to higher specificity and absence of ionising radiation)

  • Acute Abdomen
  • Breast
  • Cancer Staging
  • Cardiovascular
  • Ear, Nose & Throat
  • Endocrine
  • Gastrointestinal
  • Kidney and Urinary Tract
  • Liver and Biliary
  • Musculoskeletal Non-Trauma
  • Neurological
  • Obstetric & Gynaecological
  • Paediatric
  • Pancreas
  • Respiratory
  • Trauma
    • Trauma - Musculoskeletal
    • Trauma - Head
    • Trauma - Visceral
    • Trauma - Paediatric
  • Trauma

    • Trauma - Visceral
      • Abdominal Blunt Trauma (Trauma - Visceral)
      • Blunt Chest Trauma (Trauma - Visceral)
      • Lower Urinary Tract Injury (Suspected) (Trauma - Visceral)
      • Thoracic Aorta Injury (Suspected) (Trauma - Visceral)
    • Trauma - Paediatric
      • Injury (Paediatric, Suspected Non-Accidental) (Paediatric)
    • Trauma - Musculoskeletal
      • Ankle Injury (Suspected) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Cervical Spine Injury (Adult, Suspected) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Facial Trauma (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Hip Fracture (Suspected) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Knee pain (post-traumatic) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Orbital Foreign Body (Suspected) (Musculoskeletal Non-Trauma)
      • Shoulder Pain (Traumatic) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Soft Tissue Foreign Body (Suspected) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Stress fracture (suspected) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Thoraco-Lumbar Spine Injury (Suspected) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
      • Wrist fracture (suspected) (Trauma - Musculoskeletal)
    • Trauma - Head
      • Cerebrovascular Blunt Injury (Suspected) (Trauma - Head)
      • Head Injury (Adult) (Trauma - Head)
      • Head injury (paediatric) (Trauma - Head)
    • Respiratory
      • Blunt Chest Trauma (Trauma - Visceral)
    • Paediatric
      • Injury (Paediatric, Suspected Non-Accidental) (Paediatric)
    • Neurological
      • Orbital Foreign Body (Suspected) (Musculoskeletal Non-Trauma)
    • Musculoskeletal Non-Trauma
      • Orbital Foreign Body (Suspected) (Musculoskeletal Non-Trauma)
    • Kidney and Urinary Tract
      • Lower Urinary Tract Injury (Suspected) (Trauma - Visceral)

    Diagnostic Imaging Pathways

    The DIP pathways are a step-by-step guides to help clinicians choose the most appropriate imaging for each clinical scenario 

    “Trusted by clinicians worldwide since 2007, Diagnostic Imaging Pathways provides clear, evidence-based imaging guidelines. Our pathways support better decision-making and help improve healthcare outcomes—especially in emerging nations. 

    DIP functions and thrives wholeheartedly under the pillars of diversity, inclusivity and respect for all."

    • Pathways
    • Normal Anatomy
    • Medical Images
    • Radiation Module
    • Radiation Quiz
    • Information for Consumers
    • Governance
    • About Imaging
    • Production
    • Search
    • Login
    • Get in Touch
    © Diagnostic Imaging Pathways (DIP) 2025
    Code of Conduct    Terms and Conditions of Use
    General Site Navigation

    Information For Consumers

    • General Information About Diagnostic Imaging
      • Colorectal (Bowel) Cancer Screening
      • Colorectal (Bowel) Cancer Screening (Australia)
      • Consent to Procedure or Treatment
      • Radiation Risks of X-rays and Scans
    • Imaging Pathways
      • Ankle Injury (Suspected)
      • Bowel Cancer (Staging)
      • Deep Venous Thrombosis ( Leg, Suspected)
      • Deep Venous Thrombosis (Arm, Suspected)
      • Headache (Constant or Repeated)
      • Hip Fracture (Suspected)
      • Hypertension
      • Low Back Pain (Acute)
      • Lung Cancer (Staging)
      • Neck Pain (Non-Traumatic)
      • Renal Colic
      • Respiratory Illness (Acute)
      • Scaphoid Fracture (Suspected)
      • Shoulder (Pain or Instability)
      • Sinusitis (Acute)
      • Sinusitis (Chronic)
      • Stress Fracture (Suspected)
    • Imaging Procedures
      • Angiography (Angiogram)
      • Arthrogram
      • Bone Scan
      • Computed Tomography (CT)
      • Computed Tomography (CT) Angiography
      • Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters
      • Intravenous Pyelogram (IVP)
      • Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA)
      • Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
      • Myelogram
      • Orthopantomogram (OPG)
      • Percutaneous Transthoracic Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA) or Biopsy
      • Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
      • Renal Artery Angioplasty and Stent
      • Renal Scan
      • Ultrasound
      • Ultrasound (Doppler)
      • Ultrasound (Endoscopic Rectal)
      • Venography (Venogram)
      • X-ray (Chest)
      • X-ray (Plain Radiograph)

    Governance

    • History
      • 1990s to 2012
      • 2012 to 2016
      • 2016 to 11 April 2022
      • From 12 April 2022
      • Introduction
      • List of acronyms used on this site
    • Organisation
      • 2003 - 2012
      • 2013 - 2016
      • 2017 - 11 April 2022
      • Post 12 April 2022
    • Personnel
      • Clinical Advisors
      • Contractors
      • Contributors
      • Editor
      • Editorial Panel - Post 2022
      • Editorial Panel - Pre 2022
      • Executive Sponsor
      • Information Technologist
      • Manager
      • Other Personnel
      • Project Officers
      • Quality Coordinator
      • Research Registrar
      • Responsibilites
      • Steering Committee
      • Steering Committee
    • Responsibilities, Achievements
      • Accreditation and Endorsement
      • Clinical Advisors
      • Editor
      • Editorial Panel
      • Executive Sponsor
      • Information Technologist
      • Manager
      • Other Personnel
      • Pathway Creation, Review and Revision
      • Quality Coordinator
      • Research Registrar
      • Steering Committee

    About Imaging

    • About Imaging
      • Bleeding Risk and Assessment
      • General Principles in Requesting and Providing Imaging Investigations
      • Imaging During Pregnancy and Lactation
      • Ionising Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging
      • Ionising Radiation in Paediatric Imaging
    • Common Procedures
      • Computed Tomography
      • Gastrointestinal Contrast Examinations
      • High Resolution Computed Tomography
      • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
      • Nuclear Medicine
      • Positron Emission Tomography
      • Ultrasound
    • Contrast Agents
      • Gadolinium Contrast for MRI scans
      • Iodinated Contrast for CT scans
      • Ultrasound Contrast Media

    Production

    • Editorial Independence
      • Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
      • Funding Policy & Sources
      • Management of Conflict of Interest
    • Processes for Creating and Managing Content
      • Creation of a New Pathway
      • Creation of New Information for Consumers
      • Review and Revision of a Pathway
      • Review and Revision of Information for Consumers
    • Production
      • Initial Engagement with Consumers
      • Principles for Creating and Managing Content