ReviewDer Radiologe2006
[Quantitative ultrasound].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- [Preventive bone mineral density measurement in postmenopausal women. Differentiation of treatment of recommendations Guidelines of the Umbrella Organization for Osteology ("Dachverband Osteologie")].Der Unfallchirurg · 2013Trial
- Femur ultrasound (FemUS)--first clinical results on hip fracture discrimination and estimation of femoral BMD.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2010Article
- [Introduction to the topic: diagnosis of osteoporosis - a paradigm shift].Der Radiologe · 2006Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) can be used to obtain knowledge about bone fragility. Comprehensive study results exist showing the power of QUS for the estimation of osteoporotic fracture risk. Nevertheless, the variety of technologies, devices, and variables as well as different degrees of validation of the single devices have to be taken into account. Using methods to simulate ultrasound propagation, the complex interaction between ultrasound and bone could be understood and the propagation could be visualized. Preceding widespread clinical use, it has to be clarified if patients with low QUS values will profit from therapy, as it has been shown for DXA. Moreover, the introduction of quality assurance measures is essential. The user should know the limitations of the methods and be able to interpret the results correctly. Applied in an adequate manner QUS methods could then, due to lower costs and absence of ionizing radiation, become important players in osteoporosis management.
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.