ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2007
Pediatric bone density and fracture.
Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Annual trends in childhood fracture and injury in Beijing from 2010 to 2019.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Deficits in distal radius bone strength, density and microstructure are associated with forearm fractures in girls: an HR-pQCT study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As children grow, they accumulate bone mineral, which serves as a "bone bank" for the future. Any condition that interferes with normal bone mineral accrual during childhood has the potential to reduce peak bone mass and subsequently increase future risk for fracture. In contrast to adults, for whom dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has become the standard clinical instrument for assessing bone mineral density and criteria have been developed to define osteopenia and osteoporosis, information for children is still limited. Numerous issues confound the interpretation of DXA-derived bone mineral density measurements in children, and clinicians often find themselves caught between the limitations of these methods and the practical issue of taking care of their pediatric patient. The explosion of treatment options for postmenopausal osteoporosis has resulted in new options for the treatment of children and adolescents. However, most of these agents have not been sufficiently well studied in children to permit the development of standardized treatment guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17925194What 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.