ReviewBMC rheumatology2025
Towards stratification in osteoarthritis: a review of the scientific terminology used in published basic research.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi‑omics integration in osteoarthritis: Unraveling cell‑type‑specific gene‑metabolite networks for precision medicine (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- SERPINE1/PAI-1 in Skeletal Degeneration: A Proposed Context-Dependent Framework for Bone Remodeling Regulation.Calcified tissue international · 2026Review
- CD5L is a potential negative regulator of chondrocyte apoptosis in osteoarthritis.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.