Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39060360›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Accessory foot bones in a Portuguese identified skeletal collection.

Ana Maria Silva, Francisco Curate

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ana Maria SilvaDepartment of Life Sciences, Research Centre for Anthropology and Health (CIAS), University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. amgsilva@antrop.uc.pt.
Francisco CurateDepartment of Life Sciences, Research Centre for Anthropology and Health (CIAS), University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data from dry bone samples, collected from anatomical or archaeological collections, can improve the knowledge regarding accessory foot bones, including prevalence, size, shape and laterality, that can be useful in disparate fields of research, from medicine to bioarcheology. In the present study, the prevalence of six accessory foot bones (os trigonum, calcaneus secundarium, accessory navicular bone, os vesalianum, os sustentaculum and os intermetatarseum) was assessed in a sample of 486 individuals (226 females, 260 males) from the Coimbra Identified Skeletal Collection (CISC). The most frequent accessory bones are os trigonum (9.9%; 48/485) and calcaneus secundarium (6.0%; 29/486), while the most uncommon is os sustentaculum (0.4%; 2/486). No sex differences were observed. All accessory bones occur more often unilaterally, with the exception of the accessory navicular bone that, in the majority of cases, occurs bilaterally. The unilateral expression of os trigonum, calcaneus secundarium and os vesalianum was mostly in the right foot. The co-occurrence of accessory foot bones was recorded in 1.7% of the individuals (8/486), and the combinations of os trigonum and calcaneus secundarium were the most frequently observed. This research emphasizes the relevance of conducting studies on reference skeletal collections in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of anatomical variations in the foot. This understanding is crucial for accurate diagnoses and successful treatment in clinical settings, as well as for establishing population comparison standards in the fields of bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology.

Indexed as

Foot BonesAdultArchaeologyCalcaneusFemaleFootFoot DiseasesFossilsHumansMalePortugalTarsal BonesFoot development anomaliesIdentified skeletal collectionsTarsal bones

Identifiers

PMID39060360
PMCPMC11282305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.