ReviewLa Radiologia medica2024
Bone densitometry in Thalassemia major: a closer look at pitfalls and operator-related errors in a 10-year follow-up population.
Review in La Radiologia medica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of thalassemia-associated osteoporosis of the adult.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025Review
- iFGF23 Plasma Levels in Transfusion-Dependent β-Thalassemia: Insights into Bone and Iron Metabolism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard for measuring bone mineral density (BMD) with tolerable error rate, high precision, and excellent consistency. Our objective was to investigate the frequency and distribution of errors in a cohort of patients with Thalassemia major (TM).
methodsWe reviewed the DXA examinations of 340 patients with β-TM followed by our institution, acquired in different imaging centers between 2009 and 2019. We collected sex and age at the time of the first examination and at the last visit, as well as BMD, T-score, and Z-score values. Errors were analyzed by anatomical site (lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck).
resultsOut of 5099 total DXA scans, 11.85% presented one or more errors. Specifically, the incorrect examinations were 315 out of 1707 (18.45%) at the lumbar spine level, 113 out of 1697 (6.66%) at the total hip, 176 out of 1695 (10.38%) at the femoral neck. Errors in vertebral inclusion were the most frequently registered (45.86%). A significant difference resulted from the comparison of the T-score and Z-score median values of all the lumbar spine DXA examinations and the correct ones (p value 0.037 and 0.0003, respectively).
conclusionAlthough not directly involved in the performance and interpretation of DXA, physicians interested in osteoporosis management should be familiar with the protocols to minimize errors and allow the proper use of bone densitometry. DXA obtained at the spine level is more frequently affected by errors in patients with TM, potentially influencing the diagnostic assessment of bone health status.
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.