ArticleBone reports2024
The practicality of using bone impact microindentation in a population-based study of women: A Geelong-Osteoporosis Study.
Article in Bone reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impact microindentation (IMI) is a minimally invasive technique that allows the assessment of bone material strength index (BMSi) in vivo, by measuring the depth of a micron-sized, spherical tip into cortical bone that is then indexed to the depth of the tip into a reference material. In this study, we aimed to assess the practicality of its application in 99 women aged 42-84 yr from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Impact microindentation was performed in the mid-shaft of the right tibia using the OsteoProbe. Immediately following measurement, each participant was requested to rate on a Visual Analogue Scale [0-10] the level of discomfort anticipated and experienced, any initial reluctance towards the measurement and whether they were willing to repeat the measurement. Of 99 potential participants who attended this assessment phase, 55 underwent IMI measurement. Reasons for non-measurement in 44 women were existing skin conditions (
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.