Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods for Assessing Bone Quality: A Review

Open access
Donnelly, Eve·2011·Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bone mass, geometry, and tissue material properties contribute to bone structural integrity. Thus, bone strength arises from both bone quantity and quality. Bone quality encompasses the geometric and material factors that contribute to fracture resistance. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This review presents an overview of the methods for assessing bone quality across multiple length scales, their outcomes, and their relative advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted to identify methods related to bone mechanical testing, imaging, and compositional analysis. Using various exclusion criteria, articles were selected for inclusion. RESULTS: Methods for assessing mechanical properties include whole-bone, bulk tissue, microbeam, and micro- and nanoindentation testing techniques. Outcomes include structural strength and material modulus. Advantages include direct assessment of bone strength; disadvantages include specimen destruction during testing. Methods for characterizing bone geometry and microarchitecture include quantitative CT, high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT, high-resolution MRI, and micro-CT. Outcomes include three-dimensional whole-bone geometry, trabecular morphology, and tissue mineral density. The primary advantage is the ability to image noninvasively; disadvantages include the lack of a direct measure of bone strength. Methods for measuring tissue composition include scanning electron microscopy, vibrational spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, and chemical and physical analytical techniques. Outcomes include mineral density and crystallinity, elemental composition, and collagen crosslink composition. Advantages include the detailed material characterization; disadvantages include the need for a biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Although no single method can completely characterize bone quality, current noninvasive imaging techniques can be combined with ex vivo mechanical and compositional techniques to provide a comprehensive understanding of bone quality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11999-010-1702-0

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Donnelly, E.
Venue
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
Published
2011-08
Volume
469
Issue
8
Pages
2128-2138
ISSN
0009-921X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1963966569
Cited by
300
References
5
FWCI
7.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods for Assessing Bone Quality: A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11999-010-1702-0
The paper
Donnelly, E. (2011). Methods for Assessing Bone Quality: A Review. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1702-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.