Observational studyMedicine2025
Evaluation of primary physicians' awareness levels of non-ossifying fibromas and fibrous cortical defects by using referral documents.
Observational study in Medicine, 2025. 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 and Treatment Strategies for Adult Non-Ossifying Fibromas: A Case Report and Literature Review.The American journal of case reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the awareness levels of primary physicians regarding non-ossifying fibromas (NOFs)/fibrous cortical defects (FCDs) using patient referral documents. Referral documents of 62 male and 46 female patients (mean age: 11 [5-32] years) who were diagnosed with NOFs/FCDs based on radiological findings were retrospectively reviewed. The suspected diagnoses by primary physicians were classified as "NOF/FCD," "Benign," "Intermediate," "Malignant," and "No description." The Ritschl radiological classification of NOFs/FCDs and the relationship between the stages and suspected diagnoses were examined. NOFs/FCDs were diagnosed in 40 patients. The classifications were "Benign," "Intermediate," "Malignant," and "No description'' in 12, 3, 5, and 48 patients. Osteosarcoma was suspected in 4 patients. Among 63 patients with stage A Ritschl classification, NOFs/FCDs were diagnosed in 24 and osteosarcoma was suspected in 3. In 30 patients with stage B, NOFs/FCDs were diagnosed in 11 and osteosarcoma was suspected in one. Among patients with stages C and D, 3/10 and 2/5 patients, respectively, were diagnosed with NOFs/FCDs and a malignant bone tumor was suspected in 1 case with stage D. The suspected diagnosis was ``No description'' in 46%, 43.3%, 40%, and 40% of patients with stages A, B, C, and D, respectively. The ``primary physicians" awareness levels of NOF/FCD seemed insufficient, owing to a high rate of "No description." Plain radiography is a diagnostic technique for NOFs/FCDs, and NOF/FCD lesions commonly develop in children and young adults. Primary physicians need to be educated about the typical NOF/FCD radiological findings.
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.