ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Diagnosis of osteoporosis-importance of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
Dual-energy X‑ray absorptiometry (DXA) assessing the lumbar spine and bilateral proximal femurs is the current guideline-recommended standard method for quantitative measurement of bone density. The output of DXA-the T score-reflects the number of standard deviations by which the measured bone density differs from the average of a healthy young reference population. The operational World Health Organization (WHO) definition of osteoporosis is based on a T score ≤-2.5 at the femoral neck, although other measurement locations are interpreted analogously in clinical routine. Numerous studies have shown that a decrease in bone density is associated with an exponential increase in the fracture risk. However, consideration of the bone density in isolation is inadequate to predict the real fracture risk. Therefore, DXA results must always be interpreted within the context of other clinical risk factors. Additional DXA methods and further analyses can significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42554754What 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.