ReviewJBMR plus2026
Micro-CT-based analysis of the murine osteochondral unit: a review and recommendations for standardized subchondral bone assessment.
Review in JBMR plus, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Micro-CT enables high-resolution, 3D, and non-destructive visualization of bone microarchitecture in small preclinical animal models. It is widely applied to assess mineralized tissues in joints, making it a valuable tool for monitoring disease progression. Murine models are particularly prevalent in joint research due to their cost-effectiveness and disease tunability. Established guidelines for murine bone microstructure assessment provide a standardized framework for morphometric analysis and facilitate cross-study comparisons. However, these recommendations were developed for trabecular and cortical bone in long bones, and may not fully address the unique characteristics of mineralized tissues within joints. This review focuses on murine studies, and aims to: (1) examine reported methodologies for volume of interest selection; (2) outline commonly evaluated parameters; and (3) propose adaptations to expand existing guidelines for quantitative analysis of the osteochondral unit. In the absence of specific guidelines for osteochondral unit analysis, reported volumes of interest vary considerably and are influenced by anatomical differences across strains, sexes, ages, and disease stages. Many studies target the subchondral bone plate (SBP); however, the spatial resolution of desktop microCT is insufficient to distinguish SBP from calcified cartilage; hence, they are measured as 1 entity. To enhance reproducibility and comparability, we recommend standardized volumes of interest that include all mineralized tissues from the articular surface to the growth plate. Given the structural differences between SBP and subchondral trabecular bone, a consistent method for defining their boundary is strongly recommended. Data should be reported using robust, easily implementable metrics such as volume and thickness, with additional parameters (eg, porosity, mineral density) included as appropriate. Commonly used metrics such as SBP thickness and volume should continue to be used. When SBP and calcified cartilage cannot be distinguished, we recommend using the subchondral mineralized plate nomenclature.
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.