ArticleScientific reports2020
Identification of ultrasound imaging markers to quantify long bone regeneration in a segmental tibial defect sheep model in vivo.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in bioactivity: inducing and detecting mineralization of regenerative polymeric scaffolds.Journal of materials chemistry. B · 2024Review
- Assessment of spinal cord injury using ultrasound elastography in a rabbit model in vivo.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Clinical Assessments of Fracture Healing and Basic Science Correlates: Is There Room for Convergence?Current osteoporosis reports · 2023Review
- Icariin Has a Synergistic Effect on the Osteoinductivity of Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 at Ectopic Sites.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- The progress in quantitative evaluation of callus during distraction osteogenesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Review
- Review
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
The healing of large bone defects has been investigated for decades due to its complexity and clinical relevance. Ultrasound (US) methods have shown promise in monitoring bone healing, but no quantitative method to assess regenerated bone morphology in US images has been presented yet. In this study, we investigate new US morphometric parameters to quantify bone regeneration in vivo. A segmental tibial defect was surgically created and stabilized in a sheep animal model. US and computed tomography (CT) imaging data were collected two months post-surgery. New bone was assessed, reconstructed and quantified from the US and CT data using 3 morphometric parameters: the new-bone bulk (NBB), new-bone surface (NBS) and new-bone contact (NBC). The distance (mm) between surface reconstructions from repeated US was [Formula: see text] and from US and CT was [Formula: see text]. In the mid-shaft of the defected tibia, US measurements of NBB, NBS and NBC were significantly higher than the corresponding CT measurements ([Formula: see text]). Based on our results, we conclude that US may complement CT to reconstruct and quantify bone regrowth, especially in its early stages.
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.