ReviewIndian journal of endocrinology and metabolism
Bone Age in Endocrinology - Part 1: Methods of Bone Age Assessment.
Review in Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone age assessment is an essential competency for endocrinology residents, guiding the diagnosis and management of growth disorders, pubertal abnormalities and endocrine conditions. This review is presented in two parts: Part 1 focuses on the methods of bone age assessment, while Part 2 addresses its clinical utility and applications. The Greulich and Pyle (G&P) atlas is widely used for its simplicity, while the Tanner-Whitehouse (TW) method offers a more detailed, scoring-based approach but requires more time. In younger children, proximal ossification centres are more informative, whereas distal centres are more informative in older adolescents. TW3 generally estimates slightly younger ages than TW2, and G&P tends to score younger than TW2. Emerging tools-such as automated image analysis, content-based image retrieval and ultrasonography-promise efficiency gains but face challenges of operator dependence and variable reliability. Advances like BoneXpert have improved standardization and reproducibility, yet traditional G&P and TW methods remain central in endocrine practice due to their accessibility, validated references and widespread familiarity.
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.