Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39840588›Full record

ArticleJournal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine2025

Evaluating Bone Fracture Healing in a Rabbit Model Using Doppler Imaging Modes, Shear Wave Elastography, X-Ray, and Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry.

Priscilla Machado, Rachel Blackman, Ji-Bin Liu, Colleen Dempsey, Flemming Forsberg, Traci Fox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Current Uses for Medical Imaging With Orthopaedic Implant Technology.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Priscilla MachadoDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4107-2986
Rachel BlackmanSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ji-Bin LiuDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Colleen DempseyJefferson College of Health Professions, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Flemming ForsbergDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2215-1371
Traci FoxJefferson College of Health Professions, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8465-3011

Funding

University Faculty Seed Grant- Office of Applied Research- Thomas Jefferson University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study investigated methods of evaluating the bone fracture healing process using superb microvascular imaging (SMI; two modes color SMI [cSMI] and monochromeSMI [mSMI]), and shear wave elastography (SWE), relative to X-ray, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule 1 (PECAM-1) also know as cluster of differentiation 31 (CD-31) staining in a rabbit model.

methodsThis IACUC-approved study involved eight rabbits that underwent a bilateral fibula osteotomy and were followed for 7 or 21 days (Groups 1 and 2 with 4 rabbits in each). Ultrasound examinations using cSMI, mSMI, and SWE were performed on Days 0, 4, 7, 14, and 21 post-surgery. At the final time point, rabbits had X-ray imaging followed by euthanasia and DXA scan. Finally, the fracture areas underwent decalcification, and specimens were stained with CD-31 for pathological analysis. Ultrasound and X-ray findings were compared using ANOVAs or paired t-tests with CD-31 stains and DXA was used as a reference.

resultsComparing SMI ultrasound images between the last time points for Group 1 (Day 7) and Group 2 (Day 21) showed no statistical significance difference for cSMI (P = .14) and mSMI (P = .06), similarly when compared with CD-31 stains there was no statistical significance difference for cSMI in Group 2 (P = .13). The SWE ultrasound images from the last time points in Groups 1 and showed no statistical significance difference (P = .33), the same results were then compared with DXA and also showed no statistical significance difference (P = .14). When comparing results of the X-ray images from the last time points for Groups 1 and 2 a statistical significance difference was found (P = .01), and when X-ray images were compared with DXA there was a statistical significance difference (P < .001).

conclusionCompared with CD-31 stains cSMI on Day 21 was not statistically significant (P = .13). Results comparing SWE with DXA were also not statistically significant (P = .14). These results indicate the potential of using certain ultrasound imaging techniques to monitor the bone fracture healing process.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonElasticity Imaging TechniquesFracture HealingFractures, BoneUltrasonography, DopplerAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalRabbitsanimal modelbone fractureDoppler imagingDXAmicroflow ultrasound imagingshear wave elastography

Identifiers

PMID39840588
PMCPMC11976376

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.