ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2015
[Differentiation between acute osteoporotic and metastatic vertebral body fractures by imaging].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Imaging diagnostics in bone metastases].Der Radiologe · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis article discusses the morphological criteria for the differentiation between acute osteoporotic and metastatic vertebral body fractures and new imaging methods, such as diffusion-weighted and chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are presented.
backgroundThe differential diagnostics of osteoporotic and metastatic vertebral body fractures can be difficult in some cases. Both entities normally occur without adequate trauma and predominantly in elderly patients. IMAGING: Conventional X-ray examination is the initial imaging method of choice but is not able to reliably differentiate between the osteoporotic or metastatic etiology of a fracture. Computed tomography (CT) clearly depicts osseous destruction in metastatic fractures but lacks specificity. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows a higher sensitivity and specificity in differentiating osteoporotic and metastatic fractures. DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSTICS: The combination CT and MRI allows an accurate diagnosis with respect to an osteoprorotic or metastatic etiology in most of cases but bone marrow edema in acute fractures sometimes leads to ambiguous results and differential diagnostic problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25783690What 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.