ReviewSkeletal radiology2026
Imaging diagnosis of pseudotumors and nonmalignant masses in athletes.
Review in Skeletal radiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Athletes are commonly imaged for focal swelling, persistent pain, or a new palpable abnormality after training or injury. These imaging findings are frequently not neoplastic, although several benign processes can appear sufficiently mass-like or aggressive to raise concern for sarcoma or an aggressive lesion. Such "pseudotumors" are more common in routine musculoskeletal practice than primary malignancy. This review approaches the problem as it is encountered in practice: first, the palpable abnormality that prompts imaging, and second, the incidental or symptomatic injury-related lesion that appears worrisome on radiographs, ultrasound, CT, or MRI. Radiographs should be obtained as a first line of imaging. Both radiographs and CT remain essential when evaluating mineralization, ossification, periosteal reaction, cortical injury, or stress fracture. Ultrasound is particularly useful for imaging evaluation of superficial lesions, fluid collections, vascular abnormalities, and dynamic processes such as muscle herniation. MRI is the principal problem-solving modality for deep or indeterminate lesions because it shows compartment of origin, tissue plane affected, internal architecture, marrow involvement, and enhancement patterns. In athletes, the most useful question is often whether the finding fits the story. A benign injury-related lesion should occur in a plausible location, involve the expected tissue plane, and change over time in a predictable way. Discordant features, including progressive enlargement, unexplained deep location, infiltrative margins, nodular internal enhancement, bone destruction, neurovascular encasement, or failure to evolve as expected, should prompt further imaging evaluation to exclude a more ominous diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42616113What 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.