Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24488759›Full record

ArticleCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2014

Techniques to evaluate glenoid bone loss.

Hiroyuki Sugaya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Latarjet in women for anterior shoulder instability: a case series analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Current Concepts in the Measurement of Glenohumeral Bone Loss.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Hiroyuki SugayaShoulder & Elbow Center, Funabashi Orthopaedic Hospital, 1-833 Hasama, Funabashi, Chiba, 2740822, Japan, hsugaya@nifty.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing glenoid morphology as well as quantifying bone loss is critical when treating patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability because this greatly affects surgeons surgical planning. Although many surgeons agree that 3-dimensionally reconstructed computed tomography (3DCT) images with humeral head digitally subtracted has been considered to be a gold standard when assessing glenoid morphology, there are some surgeons who are making an attempt to replace computed tomography with magnetic resonance imaging to reduce cost for imaging studies and avoid possible radiation exposure, and demonstrated that MRI was equally valuable as 3DCT to quantify glenoid bone loss. However, the role of preoperative imaging study is not only quantifying glenoid bone loss but to assess the glenoid shape and morphology to facilitate surgeons stabilizing the shoulder. In this view, 3DCT is the most recommended preoperative imaging study for bony tissue which provides critical and substantial information of the glenoid.

Identifiers

PMID24488759
PMCPMC4094117

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.