ReviewOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2020
Common methodological issues and suggested solutions in bone research.
Review in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2020. 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.
- The Association Between Short-Term Bone Loss and Future Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head in People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Micro-Computed Tomography Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Longitudinal changes in bone mineral density during perimenopausal transition: the Vietnam Osteoporosis Study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023Article
- Association Between Change in Body Mass Index and Knee and Hip Replacements: A Survival Analysis of Seven to Ten Years Using Multicohort Data.Arthritis care & research · 2023Article
- Researchers in rheumatology should avoid categorization of continuous predictor variables.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone research is a dynamic area of scientific investigation that usually encompasses multidisciplines. Virtually all basic cellular research, clinical research and epidemiologic research rely on statistical concepts and methodology for inference. This paper discusses common issues and suggested solutions concerning the application of statistical thinking in bone research, particularly in clinical and epidemiological investigations. The issues are sample size estimation, biases and confounders, analysis of longitudinal data, categorization of continuous data, selection of significant variables, over-fitting, P-values, false positive finding, confidence interval, and Bayesian inference. It is hoped that by adopting the suggested measures the scientific quality of bone research can improve.
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.