Literature DB >> 15197540

Identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis by calcaneal ultrasound, metacarpal digital X-ray radiogrammetry and phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry: a comparative study.

Steven Boonen1, Jos Nijs, Herman Borghs, Herman Peeters, Dirk Vanderschueren, Frank P Luyten.   

Abstract

Identifying women with osteoporosis remains a clinical challenge, as it may not be feasible or cost-effective to recommend dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for all postmenopausal women. In this regard, quantitative ultrasound (QUS) has emerged as an attractive screening tool because of the (relatively) low cost and because QUS and DXA-assessed BMD appear to be equally predictive of future (hip) fracture risk. The objective of this study was to compare the ability of calcaneal QUS to identify osteoporosis with two alternative potential screening methods: digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) and radiographic absorptiometry (RA). We enrolled a total of 221 postmenopausal community-dwelling Caucasian women aged 50-75 years. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured at the lumbar spine and the total hip regions using DXA. Calcaneal ultrasound attenuation and velocity were assessed using QUS and metacarpal and phalangeal bone density were estimated by the use of DXR and RA, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed by calculating the specificity and sensitivity of QUS, DXR, and RA at different cut-point values in discriminating osteoporosis, as defined by a T-score below -2.5 at the spine or hip using DXA, and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were computed. The sensitivity for identifying women with osteoporosis was 67.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 50.2-82.0%] using QUS and was 76.9% (95% CI, 60.7-88.8%) and 82.9% (95% CI, 67.9-92.8%), respectively, using DXR and RA. The negative predictive value (NPV, the proportion of patients with a negative test who have no osteoporosis) was 90% for QUS, compared with an NPV of 94% for both DXR and RA. These data suggest that metacarpal DXR and phalangeal RA may be as effective as calcaneal QUS for targeting DXA testing in high-risk postmenopausal women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15197540     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1660-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  26 in total

1.  Phalangeal bone density and hip fracture risk.

Authors:  M E Mussolino; A C Looker; J H Madans; D Edelstein; R E Walker; E Lydick; R S Epstein; A J Yates
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1997-02-24

2.  An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Authors:  J A Kanis; C C Glüer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Hand ultrasound for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  C L Benitez; D L Schneider; E Barrett-Connor; D J Sartoris
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: state of the art.

Authors:  H K Genant; K Engelke; T Fuerst; C C Glüer; S Grampp; S T Harris; M Jergas; T Lang; Y Lu; S Majumdar; A Mathur; M Takada
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Evaluation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) in older Caucasian women: the Rancho Bernardo study.

Authors:  D Von Mühlen; A Visby Lunde; E Barrett-Connor; R Bettencourt
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Classification of osteoporosis in the elderly is dependent on site-specific analysis.

Authors:  S L Greenspan; L Maitland-Ramsey; E Myers
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults.

Authors:  A C Looker; H W Wahner; W L Dunn; M S Calvo; T B Harris; S P Heyse; C C Johnston; R L Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators.

Authors:  B Ettinger; D M Black; B H Mitlak; R K Knickerbocker; T Nickelsen; H K Genant; C Christiansen; P D Delmas; J R Zanchetta; J Stakkestad; C C Glüer; K Krueger; F J Cohen; S Eckert; K E Ensrud; L V Avioli; P Lips; S R Cummings
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  20 in total

1.  Direct X-ray radiogrammetry versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: assessment of bone density in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and growth hormone deficiency.

Authors:  Rick R van Rijn; Annemieke Boot; Rianne Wittenberg; Inge M van der Sluis; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Maarten H Lequin; Sabine M P F de MuinckKeizer-Schrama; Cornelis Van Kuijk
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2006-01-24

Review 2.  The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool versus alternative tests for selecting postmenopausal women for bone mineral density assessment: a comparative systematic review of accuracy.

Authors:  B Rud; J Hilden; L Hyldstrup; A Hróbjartsson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Digital X-ray radiogrammetry in the study of osteoporotic fractures: Comparison to dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and FRAX.

Authors:  Johan Kälvesten; Li-Yung Lui; Torkel Brismar; Steven Cummings
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  Association between passive smoking in adulthood and phalangeal bone mineral density: results from the KRAM study--the Danish Health Examination Survey 2007-2008.

Authors:  T Holmberg; M Bech; T Curtis; K Juel; M Grønbæk; K Brixen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-12-18       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Quantitative ultrasound and radiographic absorptiometry are associated with vertebral deformity in Japanese Women: the Hizen-Oshima study.

Authors:  Y Abe; N Takamura; Z Ye; M Tomita; M Osaki; Y Kusano; T Nakamura; K Aoyagi; S Honda
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Digital X-ray radiogrammetry better identifies osteoarthritis patients with a low bone mineral density than quantitative ultrasound.

Authors:  Gerhard W Goerres; Diana Frey; Thomas F Hany; Burkhardt Seifert; Hans Jörg Häuselmann; Annina Studer; Dagmar Hauser; Nathalie Zilic; Beat A Michel; Didier Hans; Daniel Uebelhart
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-09-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Joint and bone assessment in hand osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Roberta Ramonda; Paola Frallonardo; Estella Musacchio; Stefania Vio; Leonardo Punzi
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 8.  Novel assessment tools for osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Bo Gong; Gurjit S Mandair; Felix W Wehrli; Michael D Morris
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.096

9.  Identifying osteoporosis in a primary care setting with quantitative ultrasound: relationship to anthropometric and lifestyle factors.

Authors:  Ayfer Gemalmaz; Guzel Discigil; Nazli Sensoy; Okay Basak
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2007-04-20       Impact factor: 2.626

10.  The ability of calcaneal and multisite quantitative ultrasound variables in the identification of osteoporosis in women and men.

Authors:  Aydan Oral; Sina Esmaeilzadeh; Ayşe Yalıman; Dilşad Sindel; Pınar Kürsüz Köseoğlu; Tuğba Aydın
Journal:  Turk J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2019-07-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.