ReviewDer Orthopade2010
[Pitfalls and difficulties in interpretation of bone densitometry].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2010. 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.
- Pediatric and adult osteoporosis: a contrasting mirror.Annals of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism · 2024Article
- [62/f-unsteady walking and falls in the home environment : Preparation for the medical specialist examination-case 21].Der Orthopade · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical relevance of osteoporosis as a frequent systemic skeletal disease is to be found in fractures and their consequences. For prevention of these disease manifestations great importance must be attached to a safest possible diagnosis even before the occurrence of the first fracture and osteodensitometry is a well established technique for this purpose. Among the different measurement procedures DXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) has become the gold standard worldwide. This method is seen as very reliable and adequately precise. Prerequisites for these characteristics are the correct interpretation of the measurement data obtained by taking into consideration all potential influencing factors which can either false positively or false negatively influence a single value as well as the calculated mean value and the T and Z scores. Thus, exact knowledge of potential sources of error is of crucial importance. The present study shows important sources of error and difficulties in interpretation as well as a discussion of the options for their prevention. For the clinical practice osteodensitometry is to be seen as an important diagnostic component, which can only been interpreted meaningfully with respect to the clinical data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20309518What 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.