ArticleLa Radiologia medica2020
How to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of the accessory bone of the foot?
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Os trigonum: a discussion of its role in posterior ankle impingement syndrome and a meta-analysis of its prevalence.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2024Pooled it
- Accessory foot bones in a Portuguese identified skeletal collection.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- T2-mapping MRI evaluation of patellofemoral cartilage in patients submitted to intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections.La Radiologia medica · 2021Article
- Ligaments of the os trigonum: an anatomical study.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2021Article
- Plantar forefoot pain: ultrasound findings before and after treatment with custom-made foot orthoses.La Radiologia medica · 2021Article
- Traumatic and non-traumatic bone marrow edema in ankle MRI: a pictorial essay.Insights into imaging · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study was conducted to search for confident radiological signs in symptomatic cases of accessory bones. A normal accessory bone appearance on X-ray does not exclude that the accessory bone is the source of the discomfort; because of this, MRI examination can later be applied as part of the diagnosis.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed cases of 64 patients with recognized 70 symptomatic accessory bones of the foot. The average age was 29.2 (range 8-42) years. We included only patients with X-ray and MRI examinations. We investigated the following radiological features of the bone (structural and signal) in relation to soft tissue.
resultsThe most constant symptoms identified in our study were bone marrow oedema (93%) and soft tissue oedema (77%). Changes in structures in which accessory bones were located or in adjacent structures to accessory bone were identified: tendon changes 51%, fluid adjacent to bone 51% and tenosynovitis 46%. MRI revealed changes in bone structure that are not seen on X-ray, including changes in contour (28%), sclerosis (3%) or osteonecrosis (3%).
conclusionsMRI plays an important role in determining whether accessory bones cause symptoms because it shows specific and accurate changes in accessory bone and/or in adjacent soft tissue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31760553What 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.