SynthesisPloS one2020
Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis-Osteopenia in children 0-2 years of age. A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bone Mineral Density in Children and Adolescents of the Abay Region, Kazakhstan: Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Calcaneal Ultrasound Attenuation: Does the Region of Interest and Loading Influence the Repeatability of Measurement?Calcified tissue international · 2025Article
- A Multidisciplinary and a Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Fragility Fractures in Preterm Infants.Current pediatric reviews · 2024Review
- Incidence, pattern and mechanisms of injuries and fractures in children under two years of age.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImaging for osteoporosis has two major aims, first, to identify the presence of low bone mass (osteopenia), and second, to quantify bone mass using semiquantitative (conventional radiography) or quantitative (densitometry) methods. In young children, densitometry is hampered by the lack of reference values, and high-quality radiographs still play a role although the evaluation of osteopenia as a marker for osteoporosis is subjective and based on personal experience. Medical experts questioned in court over child abuse, often refer to the literature and state that 20-40% loss of bone mass is warranted before osteopenia becomes evident on radiographs. In our systematic review, we aimed at identifying evidence underpinning this statement. A secondary outcome was identifying normal references for cortical thickness of the skeleton in infants born term, < 2 years of age.
methodsWe undertook systematic searches in Medline, Embase and Svemed+, covering 1946-2020. Unpublished material was searched in Clinical trials and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Both relevant subject headings and free text words were used for the following concepts: osteoporosis or osteopenia, radiography, children up to 6 years.
resultsA total 5592 publications were identified, of which none met the inclusion criteria for the primary outcome; the degree of bone loss warranted before osteopenia becomes visible radiographically. As for the secondary outcome, 21 studies were identified. None of the studies was true population based and none covered the pre-defined age range from 0-2 years. However, four studies of which three having a crossectional and one a longitudinal design, included newborns while one study included children 0-2 years.
conclusionsDespite an extensive literature search, we did not find any studies supporting the assumption that a 20-40% bone loss is required before osteopenia becomes visible on radiographs. Reference values for cortical thickness were sparse. Further studies addressing this important topic are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.