Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2019
Precise differential diagnosis of acute bone marrow edema and hemorrhage and trabecular microfractures using naïve and gamma correction pinhole bone scans.
Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the performance of sequential naïve pinhole bone scan (nPBS) and gamma correction pinhole bone scan (GCPBS), reinforced by ImageJ densitometry and pixelized microfracture measurement, for making specific diagnoses of bone marrow edema (BME), bone marrow hemorrhage (BMH), and trabecular microfractures (TMF).
methodsWe prospectively examined BME, BMH, TMF, and normal trabeculae in 10 patients using sequential nPBS and GCPBS. The intensity of
resultsThe calculated values were categorized as ≤50 AU for normal trabecula, 51-100 AU for BME, 101-150 AU for BMH, and ≥151 AU for TMF. The difference in uptake between normal trabecula and BME was significant and the differences among BME, BMH, and TMF were highly significant.
conclusionVSMA is a useful technique for refining objective individual diagnoses and for differentiating and quantitating BME, BMH, and TMF.
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.