ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2022
Clinical Devices for Bone Assessment.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction and internal validation of a risk prediction model for rapid bone loss during aromatase inhibitor therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Ultrasound imaging and regulated mechanotransduction for characteristics, regeneration, and therapeutics of bone.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2025Article
- The Biomechanics of Musculoskeletal Tissues during Activities of Daily Living: Dynamic Assessment Using Quantitative Transmission-Mode Ultrasound Techniques.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Quantitative ultrasound imaging reveals distinct fracture-associated differences in tibial intracortical pore morphology and viscoelastic properties in aged individuals with and without diabetes mellitus - an exploratory study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.