Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26208476›Full record

ReviewWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2015

Classification of osteogenesis imperfecta.

Nadja Fratzl-Zelman, Barbara M Misof, Paul Roschger, Klaus Klaushofer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Posterior spinal fusion with pedicle screw-based constructs in osteogenesis imperfecta: a systematic review of surgical and radiographic outcomes.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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

4 authors.

Nadja Fratzl-ZelmanLudwig Boltzmann Institute of Osteology, Hanusch Hospital of WGKK and AUVA Trauma Centre Meidling, 1st Med. Dept. Hanusch Hospital, Heinrich Collin Str. 30, 1140, Vienna, Austria, nadja.fratzl-zelman@osteologie.at.
Barbara M Misof
Paul Roschger
Klaus Klaushofer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is an extremely heterogeneous group of heritable connective tissue disorders. Most of the affected patients carry autosomal dominant mutations in the genes encoding for collagen type I, the most abundant protein of the bone extracellular matrix. The resulting phenotypes are extremely broad and have been classified by Sillence and colleagues into four groups according to clinical, radiological and genetic criteria.More recently, proteins have been described that interact directly or indirectly with collagen biosynthesis and their deficiency result in rare forms of mostly autosomal recessive OI sharing phenotypic features of 'classical' types but lacking primary defects in type I collagen. Consequently the Sillence classification has been gradually expanded to include novel forms based on the underlying mutations. The goal of this article is to revisit the actual OI classification and to outline current approaches in categorizing the disorder.

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsCollagen Type ICollagen Type I, alpha 1 ChainDNA Mutational AnalysisGenes, DominantGenes, RecessiveHumansOsteogenesis ImperfectaPhenotypeProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalCOL1A2 protein, humanCollagen Type ICollagen Type I, alpha 1 Chain

Identifiers

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.