ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
An analysis of clinical values of MRI, CT and X-ray in differentiating benign and malignant bone metastases.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. 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.
- Review
- Secure and fault tolerant cloud based framework for medical image storage and retrieval in a distributed environment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An Agent-Based Model to Reproduce the Boolean Logic Behaviour of Neuronal Self-Organised Communities through Pulse Delay Modulation and Generation of Logic Gates.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A comparative analysis of CNN-based deep learning architectures for early diagnosis of bone cancer using CT images.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
objectiveTo investigate the clinical values of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) and X-ray in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant bone metastases.
methodsA total of 80 patients with bone metastases admitted to our hospital were selected as the study subjects. X-ray, CT and MRI examinations were performed, respectively. The pathological examination results were taken as the gold standard to analyze the lesion sites of metastatic tumors in 80 subjects. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of X-ray, CT and MRI examinations were calculated and compared.
resultsAmong the 80 patients, 71 cases were diagnosed as malignant bone metastases and 9 cases as benign lesions according to pathological examination. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of X-ray, CT and MRI examinations were 63.38%, 33.33% and 60.00%, 84.51%, 66.67% and 82.50%, and 90.14%, 77.78% and 88.75%, respectively. MRI was superior to X-ray in the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of differential diagnosis of benign and malignant bone metastases (
conclusionMRI, CT and X-ray exhibit a good value in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant bone metastases. Overall, MRI is superior to CT and X-ray in the screening effects, and the combined detection methods are more satisfactory. It is recommended that CT should be used for primary screening, and CT + MRI should be implemented for a enhanced diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34306502PMC8290716What 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.