Literature DB >> 22349910

A European multicenter comparison of quantitative ultrasound measurement variables: the OPUS study.

M A Paggiosi1, R Barkmann, C C Glüer, C Roux, D M Reid, D Felsenberg, M Bradburn, R Eastell.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) measurement variables vary between European countries in a different way to hip bone mineral density. Standardization of data can be achieved through statistical approaches to reduce any between-center differences in QUS measurement variables. However, further validation of this method is required before it can be widely applied.
INTRODUCTION: European between-center differences in hip bone mineral density (BMD) have been shown to exist; however, little is known about the geographical heterogeneity of QUS measurement variables. We aimed to examine the differences in QUS variables between three different European countries.
METHODS: Five calcaneal and phalangeal QUS devices in Sheffield, Aberdeen (UK), Kiel and Berlin (Germany), and three devices in Paris (France) were used to measure QUS variables in younger (n = 463, 20-39 years old) and older (n = 2,399, 55-79 years old) women participating in the European multicenter Osteoporosis and Ultrasound (OPUS) study. Broadband ultrasound attenuation, speed of sound, stiffness index, amplitude-dependent speed of sound, bone transmission time, and ultrasonic bone profiler index data were collected. Between-center differences were examined using ANOVA followed by post hoc Fisher's least significant difference tests, and ANCOVA with linear contrasts. p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.
RESULTS: Between-center differences in nonstandardized QUS measurement variables existed for younger (p = 0.0023 to p < 0.0001) and older women (p < 0.001). Anthropometric characteristics exerted a significant influence on nonstandardized data (p = 0.045 to p < 0.001). However, following statistical standardization, based on height and weight or based on measurements made in young people, geographical heterogeneity in QUS measurement variables was no longer apparent.
CONCLUSIONS: QUS measurement variables vary between European countries in a different way to those for hip BMD. Standardization of data can be achieved through statistical approaches to reduce any between-center differences in QUS measurement variables. However, further validation of this method is required before it can be widely applied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22349910     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-012-1912-2

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


  32 in total

1.  Comparison of an imaging heel quantitative ultrasound device (DTU-one) with densitometric and ultrasonic measurements.

Authors:  E Diessel; T Fuerst; C F Njeh; D Hans; S Cheng; H K Genant
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Influence of region of interest and bone size on calcaneal BMD: implications for the accuracy of quantitative ultrasound assessments at the calcaneus.

Authors:  S Cheng; C F Njeh; B Fan; X Cheng; D Hans; L Wang; T Fuerst; H K Genant
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Site-matched calcaneal measurements of broad-band ultrasound attenuation and single X-ray absorptiometry: do they measure different skeletal properties?

Authors:  C C Glüer; M Vahlensieck; K G Faulkner; K Engelke; D Black; H K Genant
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  International variation in proximal femur bone mineral density.

Authors:  M A Paggiosi; C C Glueer; C Roux; D M Reid; D Felsenberg; R Barkmann; R Eastell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Influence of anthropometric parameters on ultrasound measurements of Os calcis.

Authors:  D Hans; A M Schott; M E Arlot; E Sornay; P D Delmas; P J Meunier
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus reflects the mechanical properties of calcaneal trabecular bone.

Authors:  M L Bouxsein; S E Radloff
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Errors due to non-uniform distribution of fat in dual X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  P Tothill; D W Pye
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Patient-specific DXA bone mineral density inaccuracies: quantitative effects of nonuniform extraosseous fat distributions.

Authors:  H H Bolotin; H Sievänen; J L Grashuis
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.741

9.  Geographical variation in DXA bone mineral density in young European men and women. Results from the Network in Europe on Male Osteoporosis (NEMO) study.

Authors:  Stephen Kaptoge; Jose A da Silva; Kim Brixen; David M Reid; Heikki Kröger; Torben L Nielsen; Marianne Andersen; Claus Hagen; Roman Lorenc; Steven Boonen; Marie-Christine de Vernejoul; Jan J Stepan; Judith Adams; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Jonathan Reeve
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2008-04-16       Impact factor: 4.398

10.  Association of five quantitative ultrasound devices and bone densitometry with osteoporotic vertebral fractures in a population-based sample: the OPUS Study.

Authors:  Claus C Glüer; Richard Eastell; David M Reid; Dieter Felsenberg; Christian Roux; Reinhard Barkmann; Wolfram Timm; Tilo Blenk; Gabi Armbrecht; Alison Stewart; Jackie Clowes; Friederike E Thomasius; Sami Kolta
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2004-03-01       Impact factor: 6.741

View more
  6 in total

1.  Radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry for osteoporosis diagnosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck.

Authors:  M Di Paola; D Gatti; O Viapiana; L Cianferotti; L Cavalli; C Caffarelli; F Conversano; E Quarta; P Pisani; G Girasole; A Giusti; M Manfredini; G Arioli; M Matucci-Cerinic; G Bianchi; R Nuti; S Gonnelli; M L Brandi; M Muratore; M Rossini
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Pulse-Echo Measurements of Bone Tissues. Techniques and Clinical Results at the Spine and Femur.

Authors:  Delia Ciardo; Paola Pisani; Francesco Conversano; Sergio Casciaro
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 2.622

3.  Quantitative Ultrasound (QUS) in the Management of Osteoporosis and Assessment of Fracture Risk: An Update.

Authors:  Didier Hans; Antoine Métrailler; Elena Gonzalez Rodriguez; Olivier Lamy; Enisa Shevroja
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of human metatarsals: precision, least significant change and association to ex vivo fracture force.

Authors:  Kathryn L Bohnert; David J Gutekunst; Charles F Hildebolt; David R Sinacore
Journal:  Foot (Edinb)       Date:  2013-05-31

Review 5.  New perspectives in echographic diagnosis of osteoporosis on hip and spine.

Authors:  Sergio Casciaro; Francesco Conversano; Paola Pisani; Maurizio Muratore
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2015-10-26

6.  Comparisons of Different Screening Tools for Identifying Fracture/Osteoporosis Risk Among Community-Dwelling Older People.

Authors:  Sy-Jou Chen; Yi-Ju Chen; Chui-Hsuan Cheng; Hei-Fen Hwang; Chih-Yi Chen; Mau-Roung Lin
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 1.889

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.