ArticleJBMR plus2023
Safety Outcomes of Impact Microindentation: A Prospective Observational Study in the Netherlands.
Article in JBMR plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pentosidine and Bone Properties in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The practicality of using bone impact microindentation in a population-based study of women: A Geelong-Osteoporosis Study.Bone reports · 2024Article
- Evaluating Osteoporosis in Chronic Kidney Disease: Both Bone Quantity and Quality Matter.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impact microindentation (IMI) is a technique to assess bone material properties of the cortical bone at the tibia in a transcutaneous, microinvasive, way. IMI is increasingly used in studies evaluating the contribution of tissue material properties to bone fragility in humans, and is approved for use in the clinic in Europe and the United States. Previous data show that IMI is well tolerated during and immediately after the procedure. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the longer-term safety and acceptability of an IMI measurement using the handheld OsteoProbe device®. Included were patients who were scheduled for a measurement at the Leiden University Medical Center from September 2019 to December 2020 and willing to participate. Patients were asked to review the procedure right after the measurement, and by telephone interviews 1 week and 1 month thereafter. The primary outcome was the 30-day complication rate after the measurement. Included were 106 patients (71 women) with a median age of 59 years (range, 20 to 86 years). Only three minor events were reported by 1-week follow-up, with an overall 30-day event rate of 2.8%. These were a very small hematoma in two patients, and a small bruise in one patient, all of which resolved without medical intervention. No other safety-related concerns were observed, and all 106 patients would undergo the measurement again if needed. The vast majority had no pain at baseline, 1-week and 1-month follow-up (80.2%, 88.4% and 94.3%, respectively). In this first and large longitudinal study we demonstrated that although minimally-invasive, IMI using the OsteoProbe® device at the tibia did not lead to any complications, and was well accepted by patients. Results strongly suggest that IMI can be safely used in studies as well as in the clinic in the hands of an experienced operator. © 2023 The Authors.
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.