Literature DB >> 25634771

Is calcaneal quantitative ultrasound useful as a prescreen stratification tool for osteoporosis?

K Thomsen1, D B Jepsen, L Matzen, A P Hermann, T Masud, J Ryg.   

Abstract

Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is attractive as a prescreening tool for osteoporosis, alternative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. We investigated the literature of the usability of calcaneal QUS. We found large heterogeneity between studies and uncertainty about cutoff, device, and measured variable. Despite osteoporosis-related fractures being a major health issue, osteoporosis remains underdiagnosed. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the hip or spine is currently the preferred method for diagnosis of osteoporosis, but the method is limited by low accessibility. QUS is a method for assessing bone alternative to DXA. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the usability of QUS as a prescreen stratification tool for assessment of osteoporosis. Studies that evaluated calcaneal QUS with DXA of the hip or spine as the gold standard was included. We extracted data from included studies to calculate number of DXAs saved and misclassification rates at cutoffs equal to high sensitivity and/or specificity. The number of DXAs saved and percentage of persons misclassified were measures of usability. We included 31 studies. Studies were heterogeneous regarding study characteristics. Analyses showed a wide spectrum of percentage of DXAs saved (2.7-68.8%) and misclassification rates (0-12.4%) depending on prescreen strategy and study characteristics, device, measured variable, and cutoff. Calcaneal QUS is potentially useful as a prescreen tool for assessment of osteoporosis. However, there is no consensus of device, variable, and cutoff. Overall, there is no sufficient evidence to recommend a specific cutoff for calcaneal QUS that provides a certainty level high enough to rule in or out osteoporosis. Calcaneal QUS in a prescreen or stratification algorithm must be based on device-specific cutoffs that are validated in the populations for which they are intended to be used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25634771     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-014-3012-y

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


  52 in total

Review 1.  Quantitative ultrasound in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Authors:  C Roux; M Dougados
Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.006

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.  Cost effectiveness analysis of BMD referral for DXA using ultrasound as a selective pre-screen in a group of women with low trauma Colles' fractures.

Authors:  M F Sim; M Stone; A Johansen; W Evans
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.285

4.  FRAX without bone mineral density versus osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool as predictors of osteoporosis in primary screening of individuals aged 70 and older.

Authors:  Wee Yang Pang; Charles A Inderjeeth
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Correlation of quantitative heel ultrasonography with central dual-energy X-ray absorptiometric bone mineral density in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Bagher Larijani; Mohammad Hossein Dabbaghmanesh; Shahriar Aghakhani; Mojtaba Sedaghat; Zohreh Hamidi; Eiman Rahimi
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.153

6.  Identifying elderly women with osteoporosis by spinal dual X-ray absorptiometry, calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and spinal quantitative computed tomography: a comparative study.

Authors:  Bianca Edelmann-Schäfer; Lars Daniel Berthold; Hilmar Stracke; Petra Maria Lührmann; Monika Neuhäuser-Berthold
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 2.998

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

Authors:  Steven Boonen; Jos Nijs; Herman Borghs; Herman Peeters; Dirk Vanderschueren; Frank P Luyten
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-06-10       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  The use of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound for determining bone mass of the hip.

Authors:  Alfred K Pfister; Victoria Starcher; Chris Welch
Journal:  W V Med J       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr

9.  How well do radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound predict osteoporosis at spine or hip? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  K Lippuner; G Fuchs; A G Ruetsche; R Perrelet; J P Casez; I Neto
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.963

10.  Evaluation of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound in a primary care setting as a screening tool for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Adolfo Díez-Pérez; Fernando Marín; Joan Vila; Mercedes Abizanda; Artur Cervera; Cristina Carbonell; Rosa Ma Alcolea; Adoración Cama; Teresa Rama; Elena Galindo; Carmen Olmos
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  [Diagnostics in osteology].

Authors:  F Jakob; F Genest; L Seefried; E Tsourdi; C Lapa; L C Hofbauer
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Slightly Distorted Impression.

Authors:  Christof Birkenmaier
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  What is changed in the diagnosis of osteoporosis: the role of radiologists.

Authors:  Giuseppe Guglielmi; Rosario Francesco Balzano; Xiaoguang Cheng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-02

4.  Association of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior with bone stiffness in peripubertal children.

Authors:  Mitsuya Yamakita; Daisuke Ando; Yuka Akiyama; Miri Sato; Kohta Suzuki; Zentaro Yamagata
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 2.626

5.  Changes in bone mineral density in unconscious immobile stroke patients from the acute to chronic phases of brain diseases.

Authors:  Shoko Merrit Yamada
Journal:  Osteoporos Sarcopenia       Date:  2022-09-21

Review 6.  Osteoporosis: what the clinician needs to know?

Authors:  Rosario Francesco Balzano; Maria Mattera; Xiaoguang Cheng; Samantha Cornacchia; Giuseppe Guglielmi
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-02

7.  Heel quantitative ultrasound in HIV-infected patients: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Marilia Rita Pinzone; Daniela Castronuovo; Adriana Di Gregorio; Benedetto Maurizio Celesia; Maria Gussio; Marco Borderi; Paolo Maggi; Carmen Rita Santoro; Giordano Madeddu; Bruno Cacopardo; Giuseppe Nunnari
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 3.553

8.  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

9.  Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound has a role in out ruling low bone mineral density in axial spondyloarthropathy.

Authors:  Gillian E Fitzgerald; Tochukwu Anachebe; Kevin G McCarroll; Finbar O'Shea
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 10.  Characterization of Structural Bone Properties through Portable Single-Sided NMR Devices: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Marco Barbieri; Paola Fantazzini; Claudia Testa; Villiam Bortolotti; Fabio Baruffaldi; Feliks Kogan; Leonardo Brizi
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.