ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
An analysis of the imaging features and diagnostic value of osteoid osteoma on DR, CT, and MRI.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the diagnostic value of digital radiography (DR), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in osteoid osteoma (OO). Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on imaging data of 99 patients with pathologically confirmed OO (84 underwent DR, 86 underwent CT, and 36 underwent MRI). Detection rates of lesion features and diagnostic concordance rates for DR, CT, and MRI were calculated; intergroup comparisons were conducted using Fisher's exact test. Results: Among 99 OO patients, 74.7% were male (mean age, 15.41 ± 9.98 years). The proximal femur was the most common site (42.4%). For imaging features, CT showed detection rates of 100, 91.9, and 89.5% for the nidus, bone sclerosis, and intranidal calcification, respectively all higher than those of DR (52.4, 69.0, 16.7%) and MRI (44.4, 58.3, 55.6%). MRI achieved an 83.3% detection rate for perilesional bone marrow edema. All 23 intra-articular OOs were accompanied by joint effusion and synovitis. Diagnostic concordance rate comparison revealed that CT's overall rate was significantly higher than that of DR and MRI ( Conclusion: CT provides the best visualization of the OO nidus, surrounding bone sclerosis, and intranidal calcifications, with the highest diagnostic accuracy, making it the optimal imaging modality. MRI has a distinct advantage in edema detection, aiding in the assessment of intra-articular lesion activity.
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.