ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2019
MDCT evaluation of sternal development.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sternal Foramina Detected by Postmortem Computed Tomography in the Japanese Population: Prevalence and Developmental Patterns.Radiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Sternum length norms in Han youngsters in central China.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Article
- A safe area for sternal puncture in children: an MSCT study based on sternal development.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2022Article
- High prevalence of sternal foramina in indigenous Bolivians compared to Midwest Americans and indigenous North Americans (sternal foramina in indigenous Bolivians).Anatomical science international · 2021Article
- Honeycomb sterna: an unusual case of a developmental abnormality in the sternum.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeSternal ossification starts in utero, and continues throughout puberty in various patterns. In this study, our objective was to evaluate the correlation of ossification with age and to determine whether age can be predicted. MATERIALS AND
methodsIndividuals younger than 30 years old without congenital anomalies, chronic disease, and history of long-term chemotherapy who had chest CT imaging with a slice thickness < 3 mm were retrospectively reviewed. Data of ossification centers, horizontal and vertical fusion were collected. Spearman correlation test and ROC analysis were performed to correlate age with fusion. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to perform gender wise comparisons. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of cut-off points, estimated according to ROC analysis, were calculated.
resultsSegmented ossification centers were more common in males, with significant difference in third and fourth mesosternal ossification centers (p < 0.05). Females had more vertical fusion at each level (p < 0.05). Spearman correlation test showed significant correlation between age and horizontal and vertical fusion for both genders. ROC analysis was performed and cut-off values were estimated. Sensitivity was very high (84.6-100%) but specificity was low (43.3-79.9%) for horizontal fusion. Sensitivity of vertical fusion (64.8-100%) was similar but specificity was higher (74.7-100%).
conclusionsHorizontal and vertical fusions of sternal ossification centers correlate with age significantly. Vertical fusion might be a better indicator of age with higher sensitivity and specificity, while horizontal fusion has lower accuracy. Large-scale studies should be conducted to confirm our results.
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.