Literature DB >> 2307726

Dual energy radiography versus quantitative computer tomography for the diagnosis of osteoporosis.

R Pacifici1, R Rupich, M Griffin, A Chines, N Susman, L V Avioli.   

Abstract

In this study we compared dual energy radiography (DER), a new, highly precise x-ray densitometric technique recently devised for measurements of vertebral mineral density and quantitative computer tomography (QCT), a densitometric technique that selectively measures the trabecular compartment of the vertebra. DER and QCT measurements were obtained in 56 healthy (H) and 48 fractured osteoporotic (OP) women using a Hologic QDR 1000 bone densitometer and a GE 9800 scanner, respectively. DER was significantly correlated with QCT in both the H (r = 0.75; P less than 0.0001) and the OP subjects (r = 0.58; P less than 0.0001). DER decreased significantly with age in the H (P less than 0.05), but not in the OP women, whereas QCT was related to age in both the H (P less than 0.0001) and the OP subjects (P less than 0.01). The rate of bone loss with age was also higher with QCT than with DER in both normal and osteoporotic women. The difference in bone density between the H and the OP subjects was larger (P less than 0.05) with QCT than with DER. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that QCT was a better predictor of vertebral fractures than DER. A larger percentage of OP subjects were 2 SD or more below the normal predicted value with QCT (41%) than with DER (29%). Furthermore, the slopes of the regressions of bone density with age for normal and osteoporotic women were significantly different (P less than 0.05) with QCT but not with DER. These findings are consistent with a disproportionate loss of trabecular bone with age in osteoporosis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2307726     DOI: 10.1210/jcem-70-3-705

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab        ISSN: 0021-972X            Impact factor:   5.958


  23 in total

Review 1.  Current methods and advances in bone densitometry.

Authors:  G Guglielmi; C C Gluer; S Majumdar; B A Blunt; H K Genant
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Normal bone density in Irish women: is American normative data suitable for use in Ireland?

Authors:  J Harbison; L Daly; B Murphy; C McCoy; J Masterson
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 1.568

3.  Spinal bone mineral assessment in postmenopausal women: a comparison between dual X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  W Yu; C C Glüer; S Grampp; M Jergas; T Fuerst; C Y Wu; Y Lu; B Fan; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Reconsideration of the relevance of mild wedge or short vertebral height deformities across a broad age distribution.

Authors:  W Yu; Q Lin; X Zhou; H Shao; P Sun
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Measurement of bone mineral density.

Authors:  C Hassager; C Christiansen
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.333

6.  A comprehensive bone-health management approach for men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy.

Authors:  C E Lee; W D Leslie; P Czaykowski; J Gingerich; M Geirnaert; Y K J Lau
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Advances in the noninvasive assessment of bone density, quality, and structure.

Authors:  H K Genant; T F Lang; K Engelke; T Fuerst; C Glüer; S Majumdar; M Jergas
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Correlations of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography, and single photon absorptiometry with spinal and non-spinal fractures.

Authors:  F W Lafferty; D Y Rowland
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Quantitative ultrasound at the phalanges in a cohort of monozygotic twins of different ages.

Authors:  Giuseppe Guglielmi; Francesca De Terlizzi; Michelangelo Nasuto; Lorenzo Sinibaldi; Francesco Brancati
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 10.  When bone mass fails to predict bone failure.

Authors:  S M Ott
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.333

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.