Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35313901›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022

Methods for bone quality assessment in human bone tissue: a systematic review.

Fangxing Wang, Leyu Zheng, Jan Theopold, Stefan Schleifenbaum, Christoph-Eckhard Heyde, Georg Osterhoff

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fangxing Wang *ZESBO - Center for Research On Musculoskeletal Systems, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Semmelweisstraße 14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. fw92xadu@studserv.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2052-9492
Leyu Zheng *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20 Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Jan TheopoldDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20 Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Stefan SchleifenbaumZESBO - Center for Research On Musculoskeletal Systems, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Semmelweisstraße 14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Christoph-Eckhard HeydeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20 Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Georg OsterhoffDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20 Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Leipzig University · DEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor biomechanical investigations on bone or bone implants, bone quality represents an important potential bias. Several techniques for assessing bone quality have been described in the literature. This study aims to systematically summarize the methods currently available for assessing bone quality in human bone tissue, and to discuss the advantages and limitations of these techniques.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was carried out by searching the PubMed and Web of Science databases from January 2000 to April 2021. References will be screened and evaluated for eligibility by two independent reviewers as per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies must apply to bone quality assessment with imaging techniques, mechanical testing modalities, and compositional characterization. The terms used for the systematic search were: "(bone quality". Ti,ab.) AND "(human bone specimens)".

resultsThe systematic review identified 502 relevant articles in total. Sixty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria. Among them, forty-seven articles investigated several imaging modalities, including radiography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), CT-based techniques, and MRI-based methods. Nineteen articles dealt with mechanical testing approaches, including traditional testing modalities and novel indentation techniques. Nine articles reported the correlation between bone quality and compositional characterization, such as degree of bone mineralization (DBM) and organic composition. A total of 2898 human cadaveric bone specimens were included.

conclusionsAdvanced techniques are playing an increasingly important role due to their multiple advantages, focusing on the assessment of bone morphology and microarchitecture. Non-invasive imaging modalities and mechanical testing techniques, as well as the assessment of bone composition, need to complement each other to provide comprehensive and ideal information on the bone quality of human bone specimens.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedBone and BonesHumansResearch DesignBone compositionBone qualityImagingMechanical testing

Identifiers

PMID35313901
PMCPMC8935787
OpenAlexW4221053523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.