ReviewJournal of ultrasonography2017
Standards for musculoskeletal ultrasound.
Review in Journal of ultrasonography, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bedside ultrasound imaging to measure muscle cross-sectional area in preterm and term infants: a feasibility study.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Comparing intraoperative ultrasound and wire-guided localisation for skin cancer metastases: impacts on patient safety, outcomes, costs, and implementation.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Clock-Face Sonography of the Glenoid Labrum: A Pictorial Technical Protocol for Patients Ineligible for MRI/MR Arthrography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic value of ultrasonography in acute lateral and syndesmotic ligamentous ankle injuries.European radiology · 2021Article
- Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2021Article
- Ultrasound as a Biomarker in Rheumatic Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound has become the primary diagnostic tool in traumatic, inflammatory and degenerative soft tissue conditions. It is also used to monitor the condition of joints, ligaments, cartilage and muscles. Its widespread availability as well as cases of unsatisfactory quality of equipment and the lack of appropriate training of ultrasound examiners are reasons why standards need to be set for equipment requirements, the scope of ultrasound assessment and examiner's experience. The paper discusses ultrasound criteria that are common for many specialties as well as detailed criteria for the examined regions and structures along with their description. The aim of the paper is to harmonize the protocol for ultrasound examination in all ultrasound laboratories.
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.