Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21384210›Full record

ReviewClinical orthopaedics and related research2011

Surgical treatment options in patients with impaired bone quality.

Norman A Johanson, Jody Litrenta, Jay M Zampini, Frederic Kleinbart, Haviva M Goldman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The association of inflammatory bowel disease and immediate postoperative outcomes following lumbar fusion.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2018
    Article
  8. Insufficient stability of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: biomechanical correlation of bone mineral density and pedicle screw fixation strength.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Norman A JohansonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Drexel University College of Medicine, 245 N 15th Street, MS 420, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA. Norman.Johanson@drexelmed.edu
Jody Litrenta
Jay M Zampini
Frederic Kleinbart
Haviva M Goldman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBone quality should play an important role in decision-making for orthopaedic treatment options, implant selection, and affect ultimate surgical outcomes. The development of decision-making tools, currently typified by clinical guidelines, is highly dependent on the precise definition of the term(s) and the appropriate design of basic and clinical studies. This review was performed to determine the extent to which the issue of bone quality has been subjected to this type of process. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We address the following issues: (1) current methods of clinically assessing bone quality; (2) emerging technologies; (3) how bone quality connects with surgical decision-making and the ultimate surgical outcome; and (4) gaps in knowledge that need to be closed to better characterize bone quality for more relevance to clinical decision-making.

methodsPubMed was used to identify selected papers relevant to our discussion. Additional sources were found using the references cited by identified papers.

resultsBone mineral density remains the most commonly validated clinical reference; however, it has had limited specificity for surgical decision-making. Other structural and geometric measures have not yet received enough study to provide definitive clinical applicability. A major gap remains between the basic research agenda for understanding bone quality and the transfer of these concepts to evidence-based practice.

conclusionsBasic bone quality needs better definition through the systematic study of emerging technologies that offer a more precise clinical characterization of bone. Collaboration between basic scientists and clinicians needs to improve to facilitate the development of key questions for sound clinical studies.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAcetabulumArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBone and BonesBone DensityBone DiseasesFemoral Neck FracturesFracture Fixation, InternalOrthopedic ProceduresPeriprosthetic FracturesReoperationRotator Cuff InjuriesSpinal Diseases

Identifiers

PMID21384210
PMCPMC3126955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.