Aims. The modified Radiological Union Scale for Tibia (mRUST) fractures score was developed in order to assess progress to union and define a numerical assessment of fracture healing of metadiaphyseal fractures. This score has been shown to be valuable in predicting radiological union; however, there is no information on the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of this index for various cut-off scores. The aim of this study is to evaluate sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and cut-off points of the mRUST score for the diagnosis of metadiaphyseal fractures healing. Methods. A cohort of 146 distal femur fractures were retrospectively identified at our institution. After excluding AO/OTA type B fractures, nonunions, follow-up less than 12 weeks, and patients aged less than 16 years, 104 sets of radiographs were included for analysis. Anteroposterior and lateral femur radiographs at six weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, and final follow-up were separately scored by three surgeons using the mRUST score. The sensitivity and specificity of mean mRUST score were calculated using clinical and further radiological findings as a gold standard for ultimate fracture healing. A receiver operating characteristic curve was also performed to determine the cut-off points at each time point. Results. The mean mRUST score of ten at 24 weeks revealed a 91.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 92.6% accuracy of predicting ultimate fracture healing. A cut-off point of 13 points revealed 41.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 46.9% accuracy at the same time point. Conclusion. The mRUST score of ten points at 24 weeks can be used as a viable screening method with the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for healing of metadiaphyseal femur fractures. However, the cut-off point of 13 increases the specificity to 100%, but decreases sensitivity. Furthermore, the mRUST score should not be used at six weeks, as results show an inability to accurately predict eventual fracture healing at this time point. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):796–805