ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Comprehensive Analysis of Osteosarcoma Referral Letters: Insights into Medical Collaboration and Diagnostic Practices at Our Hospital.
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic familiarity with osteochondroma among primary physicians: a retrospective analysis of 195 referred cases.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: This study aimed to assess the status of medical collaboration between our hospital and affiliated institutions based on referral letters for patients with osteosarcoma. Patients and Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis of osteosarcoma referrals was conducted between September 1, 2012, and March 31, 2023. Fourteen patients were included (eight males, six females; mean age=28 years, range=8-74 years) each with a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of a malignant soft-tissue tumor and available referral documentation from previous physicians. Survey parameters included type of referral hospital, geographical area, and medical department of the referral hospital, as well as imaging and blood tests conducted and the corresponding findings. Results: Patients were referred from various medical institutions: Six from general hospitals, six from clinics, one from a university hospital, and one from a clinic with beds. Most patients (n=10) were from southern Osaka. Among the referrals, 11 patients were referred to orthopedics, two to surgery, and one to pediatrics. Analysis of imaging studies showed eight patients with only radiographs; three patients with radiographs, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); one patient with only CT; one patient with only MRI; and one patient with both radiographs and CT. Imaging findings included indications of suspected malignancy in 12 patients and suspected bone tumors in two. Blood tests were conducted in two patients, namely alkaline phosphatase and C-reactive protein, and alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase, respectively. Blood tests were not performed in the remaining 12 patients. Conclusion: Referrals for patients with osteosarcoma at our facility and related facilities were well documented, ensuring informative content and adequate medical coordination.
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.