Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40092229›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025

Incidence of Accessory Navicular Bone among the Indian Population - An Original Article.

Prashant Pawar, Raj Pawar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Prashant PawarDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Dr. D. Y. Patil University, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Raj PawarDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Dr. D. Y. Patil University, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of accessory navicular bone (ANB) among the Indian population. Materials and Methods: This study consisted of 510 cases of which 1020 plain radiographs of both feet were taken (anteroposterior and lateral/oblique) belonging to the age group of 18 years and older of both genders. This study was conducted retrospectively from July 2023 to July 2024 in the Department of Orthopaedics and Radiology at a Tertiary level institute. Ethics approval number I.E.S.C./W/219/2024. The primary outcome to measure was the incidence of ANB in patients consulting the orthopedic outpatient department, and the secondary outcome measured the classification of ANB into its various subtypes and the total percentage of symptomatic ANB cases. Results: Out of the 1020 X-rays assessed (510 cases) and evaluated it was found that 125 cases showcased signs of ANB in them, which amounts to 24.5% of cases. The classification of ANB according to their subtypes showed that Type 2a-b and Type 1-a were the most prevalent 23 (18.4%) and 23 (18.4%), respectively. Out of the total 125 ANB cases, only 13 were symptomatic, whereas the remaining cases were asymptomatic. Conclusion: In conclusion, the incidence of ANB in the Indian population was 24.5%, wherein the symptomatic incidence was 10.4%. Keeping this in mind, it is imperative to consider ANB as a differential diagnosis when treating medial-side foot pain. To our knowledge, this is the first paper of its kind that brings to light the incidence of ANB in clinical practice among the Indian population.

Indexed as

Accessory navicular bonefoot anomaliesfoot painincidence

Identifiers

PMID40092229
PMCPMC11907121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.