BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The application of different reference databases to calculate the T-score values of the bone mineral density (BMD) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry techniques may result in variations in the number of subjects diagnosed with osteoporosis. There are no similar dataregarding quantitative bone ultrasound. To compare the results of the application of two different reference databases: the manufacturer's normal range and the Spanish normative data. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Evaluation of the heel ultrasound with a Sahara sonometer in 5,195 women >= 65 year-old who were attended for any reason in primary care centers. RESULTS: Bone ultrasound estimated BMD T-score mean values were 1.27 and 1.29 when applying the manufacturer's normal range and the Spanish normative data, respectively (p = 0.001). Percentages of women with a T-score below 2.50 standard deviations were 12.7% and 12.8% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The application of these two reference databases shows very similar results which, although statistically different, are clinically irrelevant.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The application of different reference databases to calculate the T-score values of the bone mineral density (BMD) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry techniques may result in variations in the number of subjects diagnosed with osteoporosis. There are no similar dataregarding quantitative bone ultrasound. To compare the results of the application of two different reference databases: the manufacturer's normal range and the Spanish normative data. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Evaluation of the heel ultrasound with a Sahara sonometer in 5,195 women >= 65 year-old who were attended for any reason in primary care centers. RESULTS: Bone ultrasound estimated BMD T-score mean values were 1.27 and 1.29 when applying the manufacturer's normal range and the Spanish normative data, respectively (p = 0.001). Percentages of women with a T-score below 2.50 standard deviations were 12.7% and 12.8% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The application of these two reference databases shows very similar results which, although statistically different, are clinically irrelevant.
Authors: F Mateos; C Valero; J M Olmos; B Casanueva; J Castillo; J Martínez; J L Hernández; J González Macías Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: A Díez-Pérez; J González-Macías; F Marín; M Abizanda; R Alvarez; A Gimeno; E Pegenaute; J Vila Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2007-01-18 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J González-Macías; F Marín; J Vila; E Carrasco; P Benavides; M V Castell; J E Magaña; F Chavida; A Díez-Pérez Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-05-30 Impact factor: 4.507