ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2003
Quantitative ultrasound: use in the detection of fractures and in the assessment of bone composition.
Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive ability of heel quantitative ultrasound for incident fractures: an individual-level meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2015Pooled it
- Biomechanical behaviours of the bone-implant interface: a review.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2019Review
- Longitudinal changes in calcaneal quantitative ultrasound measures during childhood.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2011Article
- A non-inferiority test of areas under two parametric ROC curves.Contemporary clinical trials · 2009Article
- Article
- First meeting on bone quality, Abbaye des Vaux de Cernay, France, 15-16 June 2006: Bone architecture.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) techniques have found widespread clinical use, but their specific role in clinical practice needs further refinement. This review discusses the ability of QUS approaches to predict the risk for prevalent vertebral fractures and the risk for future fractures. QUS approaches perform as well as central dual x-ray absorptiometry devices but with some disadvantages (at least for older QUS approaches) with regard to the predictive power for hip fractures. Technologic diversity of QUS approaches may lead to differences in performance. QUS also has the potential for assessing bone mineral density-independent aspects of bone composition that are relevant for bone strength. For measurements at the calcaneus, it is evident that bone microstructure is the key determinant of QUS variables obtained. However, in most cases, microstructure is so highly correlated with bone mineral density that no separate assessment can be performed in clinical practice. At cortical sites, a selective assessment of bone properties is easier. Technologies need to be adapted to this purpose because requirements differ significantly from those desired for optimum fracture risk assessment. More importantly, multiple partially independent QUS variables need to be defined to assess complementary aspects of bone tissue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.