ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2026
Single-component imaging and ultrasound-based tools for the assessment of fracture risk.
Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emerging imaging and computational technologies are reshaping how osteoporosis and low bone mass are assessed. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is key for the operational definition of osteoporosis, but advances in single-component tools such as finite element analysis, trabecular bone score, DXA-based 3D shape modelling, quantitative ultrasound, radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry and artificial-intelligence-driven interpretation of routine radiology offer complementary insights into bone strength, microarchitecture and fracture risk. Some of these approaches provide additional fracture-risk measures beyond areal bone mineral density, whereas others enable opportunistic identification of people with low bone density in populations who would otherwise be missed. Strong pre-clinical and encouraging observational data support the use of these technologies and, although their current use in clinical practice varies with the age of the technology, they all have a potential role in the assessment of fracture risk at a variety of points in the patient journey (from screening to monitoring response to therapy). As their use becomes more widespread, monitoring performance, assessing the equitability of implementation and evaluating the health-service benefits of these tools in clinical practice will be key.
Identifiers
42823512What 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.