ReviewDer Radiologe2017
[Imaging diagnostics in bone metastases].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of Bone Metastases Treated with Radiotherapy in Palliative Intent: A Multicenter Prospective Study on Clinical and Instrumental Evaluation Assessment Concordance (MARTE Study).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- State-of-the-art imaging for diagnosis of metastatic bone disease.Der Radiologe · 2020Review
- Atypical magnetic resonance imaging appearance of biopsy-proven spinal metastases in a trauma patient.Singapore medical journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone metastases are common, can cause a variety of relevant symptoms and are often associated with a poor prognosis. An early and accurate diagnosis is therefore crucial; however, the pattern is very heterogeneous and necessitates good knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of each imaging modality. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) have the highest sensitivity and specificity for detecting bone metastases. Gradient echo and diffusion-weighted sequences are valuable supplements to the MRI protocol in doubtful cases and MRI is particularly suitable for distinguishing osteoporotic from metastatic spinal fractures with a high degree of diagnostic certainty; however, CT is the modality of choice for stability assessment. Reliable imaging parameters to predict therapy response in cases of bone metastases have not yet been elucidated in large clinical trials. The PET/MRI approach has shown promising preliminary results for diagnosis of bone metastases and further studies in larger cohorts are the subject of ongoing studies.
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.