ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Letter to the editor regarding "osteonecrosis of the femoral head in post-COVID-19 patients: a retrospective comparative study".
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We commend Seong et al. for exploring associations between COVID-19 and osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). However, their retrospective single-center study (N = 84) has critical limitations. The exclusion of patients with chronic comorbidities and highly imbalanced group sizes (e.g., DEX + MPS:12 vs. DEX:66) risk bias and reduced generalizability. Steroid dose equivalence (1 mg MPS = 0.1875 mg DEX) lacks authoritative validation, potentially underestimating MPS’s osteotoxicity. Higher cumulative doses in the DEX + MPS group (380 mg vs. 125 mg DEX) were attributed to “pharmacological synergy” without mechanistic evidence, contrasting findings that ONFH risk correlates with total dose, not drug type. Confounding factors, including greater pulmonary involvement (59.2% vs. 36.3%) and prolonged hospitalization in the DEX + MPS group, were inadequately controlled, possibly conflating disease severity with steroid effects. Conclusions oversimplify ONFH etiology by emphasizing steroid doses alone, neglecting viral-induced vascular injury and suboptimal imaging methods (X-ray/CT/MRI mix) that may miss subclinical lesions. Proposed “cautious steroid use” lacks clear thresholds, as the maximum dose (446 mg DEX-equivalent) was far below established risk levels (> 3,000 mg prednisone-equivalent) (1). These limitations warrant cautious interpretation of the 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.