ReviewDer Internist2016
[Diagnostics in osteology].
Review in Der Internist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical diagnostics in metabolic bone diseases cover a broad spectrum of conventional and state of the art methods ranging from the medical history and clinical examination to molecular imaging. Patient treatment is carried out in an interdisciplinary team due to the multiple interactions of bone with other organ systems. Diagnosis of osteoporosis is supported by high level national guidelines. A paradigm shift concerning the clinical relevance of bone mineral density measurement renders this now to be a strong risk factor rather than a diagnostic parameter, while strengthening the value of other clinical factors for risk assessment. The impact of parameters for muscle mass, structure and function is steadily increasing in all age groups. In order to identify underlying diseases that influence bone metabolism a panel of general laboratory diagnostic parameters is recommended. Markers for bone formation and resorption and specific parameters for the regulation of calcium and phosphate metabolism should be evaluated by specialists because they require diligence in preanalytics and experience in interpretation. Genetic diagnosis is well established for rare bone diseases while diagnostic panels are not yet available for routine diagnostics in polygenetic diseases such as osteoporosis. Conventional radiology is still very important to identify, e. g. fractures, osteolytic and osteoblastic lesions and extraosseous calcifications; however tomography-based methods which combine, e. g. scintigraphy or positron emission technologies with anatomical imaging are of increasing significance. Clinical diagnostics in osteology require profound knowledge and are subject to a dynamic evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.