Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35508870›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2022

Clinical Devices for Bone Assessment.

Kay Raum, Pascal Laugier

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
22.1field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kay RaumCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, CC04 Center for Biomedicine, Berlin, Germany. kay.raum@charite.de.
Pascal LaugierSorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, Laboratoire d'Imagerie Biomédicale, Paris, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although it has been over 30 years since the first recorded use of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) technology to predict bone strength, the field has not yet reached its maturity. Among several QUS technologies available to measure cortical or cancellous bone sites, at least some of them have demonstrated potential to predict fracture risk with an equivalent efficiency compared to X-ray densitometry techniques, and the advantages of being non-ionizing, inexpensive, portable, highly acceptable to patients and repeatable. In this Chapter, we review instrumental developments that have led to in vivo applications of bone QUS, emphasizing the developments occurred in the decade 2010-2020. While several proposals have been made for practical clinical use, there are various critical issues that still need to be addressed, such as quality control and standardization. On the other side, although still at an early stage of development, recent QUS approaches to assess bone quality factors seem promising. These include guided waves to assess mechanical and structural properties of long cortical bones or new QUS technologies adapted to measure the major fracture sites (hip and spine). New data acquisition and signal processing procedures are prone to reveal bone properties beyond bone mineral quantity and to provide a more accurate assessment of bone strength.

Indexed as

Bone DensityFractures, BoneAbsorptiometry, PhotonBone and BonesHumansSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedUltrasonographyAttenuationAxial transmissionCortical boneSpeed of soundTrabecular boneTransverse transmission

Identifiers

PMID35508870
OpenAlexW4285286790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.