ArticleRadiology. Imaging cancer2026
Comparison of FRACTURE MRI, Conventional Radiography, and CT in the Evaluation of Bone Tumors.
Article in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Primary malignant bone tumours-part 1].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the intermodality and interobserver agreement of fast field echo resembling a CT using restricted echo-spacing (FRACTURE) MRI with conventional radiography and CT in assessing bone tumors. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients with histopathologically confirmed bone tumors who underwent FRACTURE MRI and radiography over a 10-month period; a subset also underwent CT. Two independent readers assessed lesion features across modalities, with agreement calculated using Cohen κ. Results Among 161 patients (median age, 18 years [IQR, 13.5-31]; 95 male), FRACTURE showed near-perfect/perfect agreement with conventional radiography for lesion type (κ = 0.96 and 0.86, for reader 1 and reader 2, respectively) and treatment response (κ = 1.00, 1.00), near-perfect/substantial agreement for both fractures (κ = 0.95, 0.76) and lesion location (κ = 0.95, 0.79), and near-perfect/moderate agreement for matrix content (κ = 0.89, 0.56). Agreement was substantial for extraosseous soft tissue (κ = 0.74, 0.65) and osteochondral defects (κ = 0.75, 0.75) and moderate for lesion margins (κ = 0.42, 0.59). Cortical integrity showed moderate to near-perfect agreement (range, κ = 0.46-0.85) and periosteal reactions fair to near-perfect agreement (range, κ = 0.34-0.91), depending on subtype and reader. In the CT subset (
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.