Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41029467›Full record

ReviewBMC rheumatology2025

Towards stratification in osteoarthritis: a review of the scientific terminology used in published basic research.

Girish Pattappa, Niclas G Karlsson, Bibiane Steinecker-Frohnwieser, Ali Mobasheri, Eiva Bernotiene, Frank Zaucke, Gundula Roesch, Ilona Uzieliene, Ingrid Meulenbelt, Jaqueline Lourdes Rios and 10 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

20 authors.

Girish Pattappa *Department of Musculoskeletal Tissue Regeneration, Orthopaedic Hospital König Ludwig Haus, Julius-Maximilians-University, Würzburg, Germany.
Niclas G Karlsson *Department of Life Sciences and Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Bibiane Steinecker-FrohnwieserLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Arthritis and Rehabilitation, Groebming, Austria. Bibiane.Steinecker-Frohnwieser@ar.lbg.ac.at.
Ali MobasheriResearch Unit of Health Sciences and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Eiva BernotieneDepartment of Regenerative Medicine, State Research Institute Centre for Innovative Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Frank ZauckeDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics Dr. Rolf M. Schwiete Research Unit for Osteoarthritis, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Gundula RoeschDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics Dr. Rolf M. Schwiete Research Unit for Osteoarthritis, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Ilona UzielieneDepartment of Regenerative Medicine, State Research Institute Centre for Innovative Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Ingrid MeulenbeltDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section Molecular Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jaqueline Lourdes RiosDepartment of Orthopaedics, Division of Surgical Specialties, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maria KazakovaDepartment of Medical Biology, Medical University-Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Marie-Astrid BoutetNantes Université, Oniris, INSERM, Regenerative Medicine and Skeleton, RMeS, UMR 1229, Nantes, France.
Mona Dvir-GinzbergLaboratory of Cartilage Biology, Institute of BioMedical and Oral Research, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Hebrew University Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Valerija GromaJoint Laboratory of Electron Microscopy, Institute of Anatomy and Anthropology, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.
Zsuzsa Jenei-LanzlDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics Dr. Rolf M. Schwiete Research Unit for Osteoarthritis, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Yves HenrotinMusculoskeletal Innovative research Lab (mSKIL), University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Zhen LiAO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.
Sylvia Nürnberger *Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery; Division of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Switzerland.
Cecilia Aulin *Department of Medicine Solna, Division of Rheumatology, Centre for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action CA21110 - Building an open European Network on OsteoArthritis research (NetwOArk)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent attempts to understand the pathophysiology and characteristics of osteoarthritis (OA) have led to the stratification of samples and data. An important part of this process is the use of specific terminology, although the lack of clear definitions for these terms can lead to misinterpretation across different disciplines. In this study, we aimed to assess the frequency of use and chronological appearance of key scientific terminology of four prevalent terms in the field of OA research: PHENOTYPE, SUBTYPE, SUBGROUP and ENDOTYPE. These terms were analysed in conjunction with tissues and fluids associated with OA research, specifically plasma/serum, synovial fluid, synovial membrane, cartilage, meniscus and bone. The method for screening the published literature focused on publications from January 2010 to September 2024, with priority given to studies that reported results from unmanipulated human tissues and applying unbiased analytical methods. Excluded from the analysis were reviews, clinical trials, animal studies, in vitro data, and analyses of pre-existing datasets. The data revealed that the most frequently used term was PHENOTYPE, followed by SUBGROUP and SUBTYPE, with ENDOTYPE being the most recently introduced term in 2019. These terms were rarely defined and often used interchangeably within a single paper, particularly in studies involving cartilage and serum. Notably, the use of these terms has tripled in total over the last 14 years, with an increase in the past decade, reflecting a growing interest in OA stratification, as well as the utility of advanced unbiased analytical methods including microarray and RNA sequencing. The term PHENOTYPE was broadly used and often when describing clinical features, whilst the term ENDOTYPE is used when describing molecular mechanisms related to OA pathogenesis. To improve communication of findings associated with OA stratification, we propose a harmonised application in the use of these stratification terms to prevent misinterpretation and support better communication of OA-related research findings. Building on published terminology, PHENOTYPE could be used to describe clinical features, while ENDOTYPE could be used to describe molecular mechanisms.

Identifiers

PMID41029467
PMCPMC12487489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.