Regarding "True Gold or Pyrite: A Review of Reference Point Indentation for Assessing Bone Mechanical Properties In Vivo".

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

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

1. Added Value of Impact Microindentation in the Evaluation of Bone Fragility: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020
   Pooled it
2. Microhardness distribution of the tibial diaphysis and test site selection for reference point indentation technique.Medicine · 2019
   Article
3. Bone quality assessment techniques: geometric, compositional, and mechanical characterization from macroscale to nanoscale.Clinical reviews in bone and mineral metabolism · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Response to Comments on "True Gold or Pyrite: A Review of Reference Point Indentation for Assessing Bone Mechanical Properties In Vivo".2015
• Comment on
  True Gold or Pyrite: A Review of Reference Point Indentation for Assessing Bone Mechanical Properties In Vivo.2015

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as