Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42871716›Full record

ReviewPrzeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review2026

Osteoporosis: current diagnostic possibilities, a literature review.

Michał Swoboda, Wojciech Pluskiewicz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michał SwobodaDepartment of General Surgery, Siemianowice Slaskie City Hospital, Siemianowice Slaskie, Poland.
Wojciech PluskiewiczDepartment and Clinic of Internal Diseases, Diabetology And Nephrology, Metabolic Bone Diseases Unit, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoporosis is recognised as a civilization disease characterised by reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and an increased risk of fractures, particularly among postmenopausal women and the elderly. Current data indicate that a significant portion of individuals suffering from osteoporosis remains undiagnosed, highlighting the need for the development of diagnostic methods. This literature review comprehensively analyses existing diagnostic methods for osteoporosis. A literature review was conducted utilising electronic databases, such as PubMed and Google Scholar, to identify relevant articles published up to 2025. Articles were searched by combining related terms, such as "osteoporosis diagnostics", "imaging diagnostics in osteoporosis" and "osteoporosis". Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry effectively assesses BMD and helps evaluate fracture risk; however, due to its limitations, diagnosis may not always be timely, necessitating the use of supplementary methods. Imaging technologies such as computed tomography, quantitative computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging are being investigated for their potential to provide additional insights into bone microarchitecture and health, while reducing patient exposure to ionizing radiation. Moreover, advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), including deep learning (DL), show potential for improving diagnostics. Studies suggest that DL models demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity, creating potential for the development of screening tools using imaging data obtained during routine examinations. This article provides a critical review of current diagnostic possibilities in osteoporosis, emphasising the importance of a multifaceted approach that integrates traditional imaging and modern AI-based methodologies to enhance the early detection, prevention, and treatment of osteoporosis.

Indexed as

BMDCTDECTdeep learningDXAimaging diagnosticsMRIosteoporosisosteoporosis diagnosticsQUSREMS

Identifiers

PMID42871716
PMCPMC13659209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.