ReviewSkeletal radiology2024
Imaging of MSK infections in the ER.
Review in Skeletal radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Musculoskeletal ultrasound in traumatic emergencies: what radiologists need to know.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Septic knee: multimodality approach.Skeletal radiology · 2026Review
- Musculoskeletal infections in sports: imaging approach, sport-specific risk factors, and diagnostic pitfalls.Skeletal radiology · 2026Review
- Necrotizing myofasciitis: management in the emergency department using PoCUS. A case report.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Article
- Imaging and image-guided intervention of septic arthritis in adults and children.Skeletal radiology · 2025Review
- Musculoskeletal infections through direct inoculation.Skeletal radiology · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Musculoskeletal infections in the ER are not an uncommon presentation. The clinical context is critical in determining the suspicion for infection and degree of tissue involvement which can involve all layers from the skin to bones. The location, extent, and severity of clinically suspected infection directly relate to the type of imaging performed. Uncomplicated cellulitis typically does not require any imaging. Localized and superficial infections can mostly be evaluated with ultrasound. If there is a diffuse site (an entire extremity) or suspected deeper involvement (muscle/deep fascia), then CT is accurate in diagnosing, widely available, and performed quickly. With potential osseous involvement, MRI is the gold standard for diagnosing acute osteomyelitis; however, it has the drawbacks of longer scan times, artifacts including patient motion, and limited availability.
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.