ReviewJBMR plus2019
Microdamage as a Bone Quality Component: Practical Guidelines for the Two-Dimensional Analysis of Linear Microcracks in Human Cortical Bone.
Review in JBMR plus, 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.
- Mechanical polarity as a driver of bone regeneration: a multiscale framework linking tension, mechanotransduction and cortical apposition.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Runaway resorption of microcracks contributes to age-related hip-fracture patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Local E-rhBMP-2/β-TCP Application Rescues Osteocyte Dendritic Integrity and Reduces Microstructural Damage in Alveolar Bone Post-Extraction in MRONJ-like Mouse Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Modeling of Bimodular Bone Specimen under Four-Point Bending Fatigue Loading.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Effects of Fatigue Damage on the Microscopic Modulus of Cortical Bone Using Nanoindentation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microdamage is a component of bone quality believed to play an integral role in bone health. However, comparability between existing studies is fraught with issues due to highly variable methods of sample preparation and poorly defined quantification criteria. To address these issues, this article has two aims. First, detailed methods for preparation and analysis of linear microcracks in human ribs, specifically addressing troubleshooting issues cited in previous studies, are laid out. Second, new, partially validated criteria are proposed in an effort to reduce subjective differences in microcrack counts and measures, ensuring more comparable results between studies. Revised definitions based on current literature in conjunction with a digital atlas to reduce observer inaccuracy and bias are presented. The goal is to provide a practical methodology for bone biologists and biomechanists to collect and analyze linear microcracks for basic science research. © 2019 The Authors.
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.