Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39838067›Full record

ArticleSkeletal radiology2025

Performance and reliability comparison: original vs. revised bone reporting and data system (Bone-RADS).

Sara Haseli, Chankue Park, Arash Azhideh, Gita Karande, Majid Chalian

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. RADS classification systems for bone tumors: current status and where do we go from here?Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

Sara Haseli *Department of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Chankue Park *Department of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Arash AzhidehDepartment of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Gita KarandeDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Majid ChalianDepartment of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. mchalian@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8400-1593

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo propose a revised bone reporting and data system (Bone-RADS) and evaluate its diagnostic performance and inter-reader reliability compared to the original Bone-RADS for solitary bone lesions on CT. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study included 159 adult patients (mean age: 56 ± 19 years; 88 men) who underwent bone biopsy for solitary bone lesions between March 2005 and September 2021. Two radiologists (R1/2) independently categorized the lesions twice, once using the original Bone-RADS and once using the revised version. Lesions were classified as follows: (1, benign; 2, incompletely assessed; 3, indeterminate; 4, malignancy or requiring treatment). The revised Bone-RADS excluded the original criteria for lesion related pain and history of malignancy. Diagnostic performance was assessed using histopathology as the reference standard, and inter-reader reliability was analyzed.

resultsThe bone lesions included 96 lucent and 63 sclerotic/mixed lesions. Sensitivity showed no significant difference between the original and revised Bone-RADS for both readers across lucent and sclerotic/mixed lesions (all P ≥ .05). However, the specificity of the revised Bone-RADS was significantly higher than that of the original (lucent: 11% vs. 50% [R1], 11% vs. 46% [R2]; sclerotic/mixed: 32% vs. 92% [R1], 32% vs. 86% [R2]). Other performance metrics, including positive/negative predictive value and accuracy, were also higher in the revised Bone-RADS. Inter-reader reliability was higher for the revised Bone-RADS compared to the original (κ = .744 vs .854).

conclusionThe revised Bone-RADS significantly improved specificity while maintaining sensitivity compared to the original version.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsRadiology Information SystemsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedBiopsyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBone tumorCTPerformanceRADSReliability

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.