ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Performance and reliability comparison: original vs. revised bone reporting and data system (Bone-RADS).
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Bone Reporting and Data System (Bone-RADS) on computed tomography in children with solitary bone lesions.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of RADS classification systems for solitary bone lesions: malignancy risk stratification performance and clinical utility.European radiology · 2026Article
- Preoperative computed tomography for assessment of bone invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma: diagnostic accuracy and anatomical subsite dependency.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- Bone reporting and data system on CT (Bone-RADS-CT): a validation study by four readers on 328 cases from three local and two public databases.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Bone Reporting and Data System on MRI (Bone-RADS-MRI): a validation study by four readers on 275 cases from three local and two public databases.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
39838067What 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.