ArticleRadiology2018
Female Human Spines with Simulated Osteolytic Defects: CT-based Structural Analysis of Vertebral Body Strength.
Article in Radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical effects of defect size and location on vertebral fracture.Journal of medical and biological engineering · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- Review
- Healing pattern classification for thoracolumbar burst fractures after posterior short-segment fixation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Effect of size and location of simulated lytic lesions on the structural properties of human vertebral bodies, a micro-finite element study.Bone reports · 2020Article
- Mechanical testing setups affect spine segment fracture outcomes.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2019Article
- Intra- and interobserver reliability of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score system for instability in spine metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Review
- Lactate and cancer: spinal metastases and potential therapeutic targets (part 2).Annals of translational medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate a CT structural analysis protocol (SAP) for estimating the strength of human female cadaveric spines with lytic lesions. Materials and Methods Osteolytic foci was created in the middle vertebra of 44 thoracic and lumbar three-level segments from 11 female cadavers (age range, 50-70 years). The segments underwent CT by using standard clinical protocol and their failure strength was assessed at CT SAP. The spines were mechanically tested to failure in pure axial compression or in compression with torsion. The relationships of defect size, bone mineral density, and predicted failure load (at CT SAP) with measured vertebral strength were assessed with linear regression. Analysis of variance and Tukey test were used to evaluate the effect of region and mechanical test on spine strength. Results With axial compression, CT SAP predictions of vertebral strength correlated with the thoracic (r = 0.84; P < .001) and lumbar (r = 0.85; P < .001) segment-measured strength. Bone mineral density correlated with the lumbar (r = 0.64; P = .003) and thoracic (r, 0.51; P = .050) strength. At compression with torsion, CT SAP predictions of strength were moderately correlated with vertebral strength (r = 0.66; P = .018). At compression with torsion, bone mineral density was not correlated with spinal strength (thoracic and lumbar: r = 0.31 and r = 0.26, respectively; P = .539 and .610, respectively). The lytic focus size (range, 28%-41%) was not associated with vertebral strength. Conclusion CT SAP assessment of strength in vertebrae with lytic lesions correlated with the measured strength of female vertebral bodies.
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.