ArticleAdvances in orthopedics2021
Predicting Fracture Risk in Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease of the Femur: A Pictorial Review Using Three Different Techniques.
Article in Advances in orthopedics, 2021. 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.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Mirels score, CT-based Structural Rigidity Analysis, and Finite Element Analysis for predicting impending femoral pathologic fractures in metastatic bone disease: a systematic review.Journal of bone oncology · 2026Review
- Femur Fracture Risk Assessment in Patients with Lytic Metastases Using CT-Based Finite Element Models and Bone Crack Simulations Technique.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Review
- Effect of different constraining boundary conditions on simulated femoral stresses and strains during gait.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Modification to Mirels scoring system location component improves fracture prediction for metastatic disease of the proximal femur.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- The Surgical Management of Proximal Femoral Metastases: A Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
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
One of the key roles of an orthopedic surgeon treating metastatic bone disease (MBD) is fracture risk prediction. Current widely used impending fracture risk tools such as Mirels scoring lack specificity. Two newer methods of fracture risk prediction, CT-based structural rigidity analysis (CTRA) and finite element analysis (FEA), have each been shown to be more accurate than Mirels. This case series illustrates comparative Mirels, CTRA, and FEA for 8 femurs in 7 subjects. These cases were selected from a much larger data set to portray examples of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives as defined by CTRA relative to the fracture outcome. Case illustrations demonstrate comparative Mirels and FEA. This series illustrates the use, efficacy, and limitations of these tools. As all current tools have limitations, further work is needed in refining and developing fracture risk prediction.
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.