Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29915968›Full record

ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2018

Mechanical Characterization of Bone: State of the Art in Experimental Approaches-What Types of Experiments Do People Do and How Does One Interpret the Results?

Stacyann Bailey, Deepak Vashishth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of Thermal Environment on Bone Microenvironment: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. New Horizons: Artificial Intelligence Tools for Managing Osteoporosis.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. In Vivo Assessment of Cortical Bone Fragility.Current osteoporosis reports · 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

2 authors.

Stacyann BaileyCenter for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY, 12180, USA.
Deepak VashishthCenter for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY, 12180, USA. vashid@rpi.edu.

Funding

Effects of Osteocalcin and Osteopontin on Damage Morphology and Bone FragilityR01AR049635 · NIAMS · RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI VASHISHTH, DEEPAK · 2002 to 2014
$3.3M
Predicting Fracture Risk in Patients Treated with Radiotherapy for Spinal Metastatic DiseaseR01AR075964 · NIAMS · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI ALKALAY, RON N, BALBONI, TRACY A. · 2020 to 2024
$3.2M
Conduits: MSHS Translational Science HubTL1TR001434 · NCATS · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI GABRILOVE, JANICE L · 2015 to 2019
$2.1M
Collagen Crosslinking Effects on Bone FragilityR01AG020618 · NIA · RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI VASHISHTH, DEEPAK · 2005 to 2009
$1.1M
Predicting Fracture Risk in Patients Treated with Radiotherapy for Spinal Metastatic DiseaseR56AR075964 · NIAMS · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI ALKALAY, RON N, BALBONI, TRACY A. · 2019 to 2019
$662k
Effects of non-enzymatic glycation and collagen crosslinks on bone fragilityR56AG020618 · NIA · RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI VASHISHTH, DEEPAK · 2017 to 2017
$386k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001434NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR049635NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR075964NIAMS NIH HHS R56 AR075964NIA NIH HHS R01 AG020618NIA NIH HHS R56 AG020618
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe mechanical integrity of bone is determined by the direct measurement of bone mechanical properties. This article presents an overview of the current, most common, and new and upcoming experimental approaches for the mechanical characterization of bone. The key outcome variables of mechanical testing, as well as interpretations of the results in the context of bone structure and biology are also discussed. RECENT

findingsQuasi-static tests are the most commonly used for determining the resistance to structural failure by a single load at the organ (whole bone) level. The resistance to crack initiation or growth by fracture toughness testing and fatigue loading offers additional and more direct characterization of tissue material properties. Non-traditional indentation techniques and in situ testing are being increasingly used to probe the material properties of bone ultrastructure. Destructive ex vivo testing or clinical surrogate measures are considered to be the gold standard for estimating fracture risk. The type of mechanical test used for a particular investigation depends on the length scale of interest, where the outcome variables are influenced by the interrelationship between bone structure and composition. Advancement in the sensitivity of mechanical characterization techniques to detect changes in bone at the levels subjected to modifications by aging, disease, and/or pharmaceutical treatment is required. As such, a number of techniques are now available to aid our understanding of the factors that contribute to fracture risk.

Indexed as

Compressive StrengthFlexural StrengthTorsion, MechanicalBiomechanical PhenomenaBone and BonesFractures, BoneHumansMechanical PhenomenaStress, MechanicalWeight-BearingBone fractureIndentationMechanical testStrengthToughness

Identifiers

PMID29915968
PMCPMC8078087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.