J-H Lee1, Y K Lee2, S-H Oh2, J Ahn2, Y E Lee3, J H Pyo4, Y Y Choi5, D Kim6, S-C Bae6, Y-K Sung6, D-Y Kim7. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 2. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Science and Regulation, Department of Pharmaceutical Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Rheumatology, Hanyang University Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Seoul, 130-872, Republic of Korea. deogyoon@daum.net.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This systematic review was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) with that of spinal radiography for identification of vertebral fractures (VFs). VFA appeared to have moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting VFs when compared with spinal radiography. INTRODUCTION: VFs are recognized as the hallmark of osteoporosis, and a previous VF increases the risk of a future fracture. Therefore, the timely detection of VFs is important for prevention of further fractures. This systematic review examined the diagnostic accuracy of VFA using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to identify VFs. METHODS: We searched for potentially relevant studies using electronic databases, including Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, Cochrane library, and four Korean databases, from their inception to May 2013. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of VFA with that of spinal radiography for detection of VFs by analyzing the sensitivity and specificity using a 2 × 2 contingency table. Subgroup analyses were also performed on studies with a low risk of bias and applicability. RESULTS: Twelve studies were analyzed for the diagnostic accuracy of VFA. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.70-0.93 and 0.95-1.00, respectively, analyzed on a per-vertebra basis, and 0.65-1.00 and 0.74-1.00 on a per-patient basis. The sensitivity and specificity of five studies in subgroups with a low risk of bias in the intervention test were 0.70-0.84 and 0.96-0.99, respectively. In studies with a low risk of bias in the patient selection, those based on a per-vertebra basis in three studies were 0.70-0.93 and 0.96-1.00, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VFA had moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting VF when compared with spinal radiography. However, the present findings are insufficient to assess whether spinal radiography should be replaced by VFA.
UNLABELLED: This systematic review was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) with that of spinal radiography for identification of vertebral fractures (VFs). VFA appeared to have moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting VFs when compared with spinal radiography. INTRODUCTION: VFs are recognized as the hallmark of osteoporosis, and a previous VF increases the risk of a future fracture. Therefore, the timely detection of VFs is important for prevention of further fractures. This systematic review examined the diagnostic accuracy of VFA using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to identify VFs. METHODS: We searched for potentially relevant studies using electronic databases, including Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, Cochrane library, and four Korean databases, from their inception to May 2013. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of VFA with that of spinal radiography for detection of VFs by analyzing the sensitivity and specificity using a 2 × 2 contingency table. Subgroup analyses were also performed on studies with a low risk of bias and applicability. RESULTS: Twelve studies were analyzed for the diagnostic accuracy of VFA. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.70-0.93 and 0.95-1.00, respectively, analyzed on a per-vertebra basis, and 0.65-1.00 and 0.74-1.00 on a per-patient basis. The sensitivity and specificity of five studies in subgroups with a low risk of bias in the intervention test were 0.70-0.84 and 0.96-0.99, respectively. In studies with a low risk of bias in the patient selection, those based on a per-vertebra basis in three studies were 0.70-0.93 and 0.96-1.00, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VFA had moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting VF when compared with spinal radiography. However, the present findings are insufficient to assess whether spinal radiography should be replaced by VFA.
Authors: Alberto Bazzocchi; Paolo Spinnato; Federica Fuzzi; Danila Diano; Antonio M Morselli-Labate; Claudia Sassi; Eugenio Salizzoni; Giuseppe Battista; Giuseppe Guglielmi Journal: Bone Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Sarah Sullivan; Julie Wagner; Neil M Resnick; Joel Nelson; Subashan K Perera; Susan L Greenspan Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Stephen Kaptoge; Gabi Armbrecht; Dieter Felsenberg; Mark Lunt; Terence W O'Neill; Alan J Silman; Jonathan Reeve Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-09-07 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Giuseppe Guglielmi; Francesco Palmieri; Maria Grazia Placentino; Francesco D'Errico; Luca Pio Stoppino Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Jacob M Mostert; Stephan R Romeijn; Petra Dibbets-Schneider; Daphne D D Rietbergen; Lenka M Pereira Arias-Bouda; Christoph Götz; Matthew D DiFranco; Hans Peter Dimai; Willem Grootjans Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: S De Smet; T Banica; H G Zmierczak; S Goemaere; C Verroken; J M Kaufman; B Lapauw Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2022-10-01 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: F Malgo; N A T Hamdy; C H J M Ticheler; F Smit; H M Kroon; T J Rabelink; O M Dekkers; N M Appelman-Dijkstra Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 4.507