ReviewRheumatology advances in practice2024
Disease-specific definitions of new bone formation on spine radiographs: a systematic literature review.
Review in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2024. 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.
- Spinal lesions in axial spondyloarthritis: longitudinal assessment of disease-related and degenerative changes.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Focusing on ligamentous soft tissue inflammation for the future understanding of early axial psoriatic arthritis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to explore the radiographic definitions of types of New Bone formation (NBF) by focusing on the terminology, description and location of the findings. Methods: Three systematic literature reviews were conducted in parallel to identify the radiographic spinal NBF definitions for spondyloarthritis (SpA), Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis (DISH) and Osteorathritis (OA). Study characteristics and definitions were extracted independently by two reviewers. Definitions were analysed and collated based on whether they were unique, modified or established from previous research. Results: We identified 33 studies that indicated a definition for the NBF in SpA, 10 for DISH and 7 for spinal OA. In SpA, the variations in syndesmophytes included the description as well as the subtypes and locations. The differentiation of syndesmophytes from osteophytes were included in 12 articles, based on the origin and the angle of the NBF and associated findings. The definitions of DISH varied in the number of vertebrae, level and laterality. For OA, five articles indicated that osteophytes arose from the anterior or lateral aspects of the vertebral bodies, and two studies required a size cut-off. Discussion: Our ultimate aim is to create formal NBF definitions for SpA, DISH and OA guided by an atlas, through a Delphi exercise with international experts. The improved ability to differentiate these conditions radiographically will not only allow the clinicians to accurately approach patients but also will help the researchers to better classify patient phenotypes and focus on accurate radiographic outcomes.
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.