Observational studyMedicine2025
Evaluation of primary physicians' awareness regarding the radiological findings of osteosarcoma: A retrospective study.
Observational study in Medicine, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A referral from a primary physician is a crucial initial diagnostic intervention for the management of osteosarcoma. We reviewed the awareness of primary physicians regarding the radiological findings of osteosarcoma through their referral documents. Referral documents of 40 patients (27 male and 13 female; median age, 19 [8-81] years) with osteosarcoma were retrospectively investigated. The documents were examined for suggested supplementary radiological procedures, presence or absence of a descriptive keyword for the radiological findings of osteosarcoma, periosteal reaction, matrix, soft tissue mass, type of border of the lesion, and type of bone destruction, followed by an assessment of the diagnostic radiologists' findings. The keywords "periosteal reaction," "matrix," "soft tissue extension," "border of the lesion," and "type of bone destruction" were described in 5 (7.5%), 5 (15%), 4 (10%), 0 (0%), and 7 (17.5%) cases by the primary physicians, respectively. Records with "periosteal reaction," "matrix," "soft tissue mass," "type of border of the lesion," and "type of bone destruction" were described in 5 (31.25%), 5 (31.25%), 10 (62.5%), 3 (18.8%), and 3 (18.8%) radiologic findings of the diagnostic radiologists, respectively. The descriptions of keywords for radiological findings suggesting osteosarcoma in referral documents from primary physicians seemed generally insufficient. More enhanced and comprehensive awareness of the typical radiological findings of osteosarcoma is necessary to prevent diagnostic delays.
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.