ReviewDer Orthopade2019
[The importance of radiology in bone sarcoma diagnostics : Initial and advanced diagnostics].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Skull Base Osteosarcoma: An Analysis of 9 Cases and Literature Review.Head and neck pathology · 2025Review
- Delay in Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Bone Tumors during COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland.Cancers · 2022Article
- [Conventional epiphyseal chondrosarcoma of childhood and adolescence: a case report].Der Unfallchirurg · 2021Article
- Using Machine Learning to Unravel the Value of Radiographic Features for the Classification of Bone Tumors.BioMed research international · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable diagnostic assessment of malignant bone lesions remains a challenge in all the medical disciplines involved. The high incidence of benign (mainly pediatric) bone lesions needs to be distinguished from the rare malignant counterparts. If clinical presentation and patient history are unable to exclude a malignant tumour, adequate imaging of the affected region is necessary.
objectivesThis article focuses on giving implementable advice in dealing with problems and questions arising in the diagnostic process of treating patients with suspected or confirmed bone sarcoma. Also, follow-up recommendations from a radiological point of view are presented.
methodsReview and discussion of relevant literature against personal experiences in the medical imaging of patients with bone sarcomas.
resultsInterpretation of projection radiographic images usually succeeds in assessing a bone tumour's dignity by evaluating periosteal reaction, the formation of a tumour matrix and consideration of the Lodwick classification. A current adaptation of the classic Lodwick classification incorporates diagnostic possibilities of more recent imaging techniques (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET)) and is presented in this article. Plain radiographs are superseded by MRI as the primary imaging performed when depicting bone lesions with increasing frequency. The role of MRI in terms of primary diagnostics, staging, planning of biopsy tracts and tumour resections, evaluation of treatment response and follow-up are discussed. All diagnostic imaging techniques, including whole-body imaging methods, relevant in the diagnosis and therapy of bone sarcomas are presented in the sequence in which they appear during treatment.
conclusionsRadiological imaging and expertise are important pillars in diagnosis and treatment of bone sarcomas. A variety of complementing imaging techniques provide a treatment-relevant basis significant for all medical disciplines involved.
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.