ArticleOrthopedic reviews2024
diagnostic approach to bone metastasis of unknown origin: a systematic review.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Localized fungal osteomyelitis caused byOpen veterinary journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmong all MBD cases, 3% have an unidentified origin and are commonly misdiagnosed. On average, nearly 75% of MBD cases with an unknown origin take four months to diagnose. This difficulty in identifying the primary cancer limits the treatment of skeletal metastases to palliative measures, negatively impacting a patient's prognosis. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current diagnostic work-up approaches available for MBD.
methodsThis systematic review was carried out according to the guidelines of the (PRISMA) 2020 Statement, including studies with a population of interest of MBD with unknown primary origin. We excluded studies with non-English language and MBD cases with known origin. The intervention of the diagnostic approach was the primary outcome. The authors searched three electronic medical databases. Individual reviewers performed quality and risk of bias assessments.
resultsAll ten articles were cohort studies, with the median age of the subjects ranging from 55.6 to 65.2 years. The most frequently recommended supporting examination was biopsy, with a detection rate of 38.2%, followed by chest X-ray and CT scan, both with a detection rate of 26.7%. Overall, the detection rate of the primary lesion from individual examinations ranged from 2.8% to 38.2%, highlighting the difficulty of diagnosis when relying solely on a single examination.
conclusionsBiopsy is crucial in identifying the primary lesion of metastatic bone disease with an unknown origin, with a detection rate of 38.2%, making it the most frequently recommended examination. However, this review has several limitations. A few assumptions were made in the synthesis of numerical data.
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.