Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450562›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2018

[Which typical foot fractures should the radiologist know?]

G Bratke, V Neuhaus, K Slebocki, S Haneder, R Rau

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Lower leg, ankle and foot].Der Radiologe · 2020
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

G BratkeInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland.
V NeuhausInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland.
K SlebockiInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland.
S HanederInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland. Stefan.Haneder@uk-koeln.de.
R RauInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland.
University Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

clinical/methodical issueDue to mechanical loading and the number of joints involved, fractures of the foot are among the most common fractures. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL

methodsX-ray is basis for diagnostic workup of all foot fractures. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: For stress fractures, the additional use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is indicated. Computed tomography (CT) can be used for preoperative imaging of intraarticular tarsal fractures. PERFORMANCE: Simple traumatic fractures can be reliably diagnosed by X‑ray. On the other hand, there is a poor sensitivity for stress fractures. ACHIEVEMENTS: Using a combination of X‑ray, MRI, and CT, it is possible to reliably diagnosis and classify foot fractures. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The first step to diagnose a foot fracture should be the X‑ray. CT and MRI can also be used to detect intra-articular fractures and MRI can be used for stress fractures.

Indexed as

Foot InjuriesFractures, StressHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiologistsTomography, X-Ray ComputedClassificationDiagnostic X‑rayFoot skeletonStress fracturesTraumatic bone fractures

Identifiers

PMID29450562
OpenAlexW2791921658

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.