Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38969781›Full record

ReviewSkeletal radiology2024

CT in musculoskeletal imaging: still helpful and for what?

John A Carrino, Hamza Ibad, Yenpo Lin, Elena Ghotbi, Joshua Klein, Shadpour Demehri, Filippo Del Grande, Eric Bogner, Mikael P Boesen, Jeffrey H Siewerdsen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

John A CarrinoWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. CarrinoJ@HSS.EDU.
Hamza IbadThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Yenpo LinDepartment of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Elena GhotbiThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Joshua KleinThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Shadpour DemehriMusculoskeletal Radiology, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 N. Caroline Street, JHOC 5165, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Filippo Del GrandeClinic of Radiology, Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Via Tesserete 46, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Eric BognerDepartment of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Mikael P BoesenDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Nielsine Nielsens Vej 5, Entrance 7A, 3Rd Floor, 2400, Copenhagen, NV, Denmark.
Jeffrey H SiewerdsenDepartment of Imaging Physics, Institute for Data Science in Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) is a common modality employed for musculoskeletal imaging. Conventional CT techniques are useful for the assessment of trauma in detection, characterization and surgical planning of complex fractures. CT arthrography can depict internal derangement lesions and impact medical decision making of orthopedic providers. In oncology, CT can have a role in the characterization of bone tumors and may elucidate soft tissue mineralization patterns. Several advances in CT technology have led to a variety of acquisition techniques with distinct clinical applications. These include four-dimensional CT, which allows examination of joints during motion; cone-beam CT, which allows examination during physiological weight-bearing conditions; dual-energy CT, which allows material decomposition useful in musculoskeletal deposition disorders (e.g., gout) and bone marrow edema detection; and photon-counting CT, which provides increased spatial resolution, decreased radiation, and material decomposition compared to standard multi-detector CT systems due to its ability to directly translate X-ray photon energies into electrical signals. Advanced acquisition techniques provide higher spatial resolution scans capable of enhanced bony microarchitecture and bone mineral density assessment. Together, these CT acquisition techniques will continue to play a substantial role in the practices of orthopedics, rheumatology, metabolic bone, oncology, and interventional radiology.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesMusculoskeletal SystemComputed tomography (CT)Cone-beam CT (CBCT)Dual-energy CT (DECT)MusculoskeletalPhoton counting CT (PCCT)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.