ArticleJSES international2022
Can magnetic resonance imaging accurately and reliably measure humeral cortical thickness?
Article in JSES international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation Analysis of Suture Anchor Pull-Out Strength with Cortical Bone Thickness and Cancellous Bone Density on a Finite Element Model.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHistorically, imaging osseous detail in three dimensions required a computed tomography (CT) scan with ionizing radiation that poorly visualizes the soft tissues. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of ultrashort echo time (UTE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in measuring humeral cortical thickness and cancellous density as compared with CT.
methodsThis was a comparative radiographic study in nine cadavers, each of which underwent CT and UTE MRI. On images aligned to the center of the humeral shaft, anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral humeral cortical thickness was measured 5, 10, and 15 cm distal to the top of the head. Cancellous density was measured as signal within a 1-cm diameter region of interest in the center of the head, the subtuberosity head, the subarticular head, and the subarticular glenoid vault. Glenoid cortical thickness was measured at the center of the glenoid. Cortical measurements were compared using mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, paired Student's t-tests, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). We compared cancellous measurements using Pearson's correlation coefficients. For all measurements, we calculated interobserver and intraobserver reliability using ICCs with 0.75 as the lower limit for acceptability.
resultsWith regard to accuracy, for humeral cortical thickness measurements, there were no significant differences between MRI and CT measures, and ICCs were >0.75. The glenoid cortical thickness ICC was <0.75. There was no significant correlation between the cancellous signal on MRI and on CT in any region. For both MRI and CT, interobserver reliability and intraobserver reliability were acceptable (ie, >0.75) for almost all humeral cortical thickness measures.
conclusionUTE MRI can reliably and accurately measure humeral cortical thickness, but cannot accurately measure cancellous density or accurately and reliably measure glenoid cortical thickness.
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.