ArticleCureus2024
X-ray Imaging Versus Anatomical Dissection for Identification of the Fabella.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReported prevalence rates of the fabella sesamoid bone vary widely, particularly between studies based on either X-ray imaging or anatomical dissection approaches. The purpose of this study was to directly compare these two methodologies in their detection of fabellae and investigate whether variability in the density of fabellae could explain any discrepancies.
methodsFifty cadaveric knee segments were examined for the presence of a fabella by both X-ray imaging and anatomical dissection. The relative density of each excised fabella specimen was then quantified using a separate set of radiographs. Results: Fabellae were detected in 40% of the sample knees via a manual dissection approach but in just 12% of those same specimens using X-ray imaging. Relative density measurements confirmed that fabellae identifiable only via dissection were significantly less dense than fabellae visible in whole knee radiographs but denser than the surrounding tissue.
conclusionRadiology cannot reliably detect cartilaginous or incompletely ossified fabellae, which were found in 28% of the study population. Clinicians should consider the potential occurrence of a fabella when diagnosing posterolateral knee pain, even if it may not be visible via X-ray.
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.