Literature DB >> 28719143

Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture Prevalence Varies Widely Between Qualitative and Quantitative Radiological Assessment Methods: The Rotterdam Study.

Ling Oei1,2, Fjorda Koromani1,2,3, Stephan J Breda3, John T Schousboe4, Emma M Clark5, Joyce Bj van Meurs1, M Arfan Ikram2, Jan H Waarsing6, Frank Ja van Rooij2, Maria C Zillikens1, Gabriel P Krestin3, Edwin Hg Oei3, Fernando Rivadeneira1,2.   

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis of vertebral osteoporotic fractures is crucial for the identification of individuals at high risk of future fractures. Different methods for radiological assessment of vertebral fractures exist, but a gold standard is lacking. The aim of our study was to estimate statistical measures of agreement and prevalence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in the population-based Rotterdam Study, across two assessment methods. The quantitative morphometry assisted by SpineAnalyzer® (QM SA) method evaluates vertebral height loss that affects vertebral shape whereas the algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method judges endplate integrity and includes guidelines for the differentiation of vertebral fracture and nonfracture deformities. Cross-sectional radiographs were assessed for 7582 participants aged 45 to 95 years. With QM SA, the prevalence was 14.2% (95% CI, 13.4% to 15.0%), compared to 4.0% (95% CI, 3.6% to 4.5%) with ABQ. Inter-method agreement according to kappa (κ) was 0.24. The highest agreement between methods was among females (κ = 0.31), participants age >80 years (κ = 0.40), and at the L1 level (κ = 0.40). With ABQ, most fractures were found at the thoracolumbar junction (T12 -L1 ) followed by the T7 -T8 level, whereas with QM SA, most deformities were in the mid thoracic (T7 -T8 ) and lower thoracic spine (T11 -T12 ), with similar number of fractures in both peaks. Excluding mild QM SA deformities (grade 1 with QM) from the analysis increased, the agreement between the methods from κ = 0.24 to 0.40, whereas reexamining mild deformities based on endplate depression increased agreement from κ = 0.24 to 0.50 (p <0.001). Vertebral fracture prevalence differs significantly between QM SA and ABQ; reexamining QM mild deformities based on endplate depression would increase the agreement between methods. More widespread and consistent application of an optimal method may improve clinical care.
© 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DIAGNOSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FRACTURE; OSTEOPOROSIS; RADIOLOGY; SCREENING; VERTEBRAL

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28719143     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3220

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  23 in total

1.  Association of vertebral endplate microstructure with bone strength in men and women.

Authors:  MeiLissa McKay; Timothy M Jackman; Amira I Hussein; Ali Guermazi; Jingjiang Liu; Elise F Morgan
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  Prevalent vertebral fractures and minor vertebral deformities analyzed by vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) increases the risk of incident fractures in postmenopausal women: the FRODOS study.

Authors:  E Kanterewicz; E Puigoriol; J R Rodríguez Cros; P Peris
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  The Rotterdam Study: 2018 update on objectives, design and main results.

Authors:  M Arfan Ikram; Guy G O Brusselle; Sarwa Darwish Murad; Cornelia M van Duijn; Oscar H Franco; André Goedegebure; Caroline C W Klaver; Tamar E C Nijsten; Robin P Peeters; Bruno H Stricker; Henning Tiemeier; André G Uitterlinden; Meike W Vernooij; Albert Hofman
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Corrigendum to how to define an osteoporotic vertebral fracture.

Authors: 
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-11

5.  Gender and the recognition of vertebral fractures.

Authors:  Brian C Lentle
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-06

Review 6.  Vertebral Fracture Identification as Part of a Comprehensive Risk Assessment in Patients with Osteoporosis.

Authors:  John T Schousboe
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 5.096

7.  How to define an osteoporotic vertebral fracture?

Authors:  Daniele Diacinti; Giuseppe Guglielmi
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-09

8.  Elderly males with or without existing osteoporotic vertebral fracture have much lower future vertebral fracture risk than elderly females: the MrOS (Hong Kong) year-4 follow-up spine radiograph study.

Authors:  Y X J Wáng; N Che-Nordin; M Deng; J F Griffith; J C S Leung; A W L Kwok; P C Leung; T C Y Kwok
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Prevalent osteoporotic vertebral fractures more likely involve the upper endplate than the lower endplate and even more so in males.

Authors:  Nazmi Che-Nordin; Min Deng; James F Griffith; Jason C S Leung; Anthony W L Kwok; Yue-Qi Zhu; Richard H Y So; Timothy C Y Kwok; Ping Chung Leung; Yì Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-11

10.  Vertebral Fracture Assessment in Postmenopausal Women With Postsurgical Hypoparathyroidism.

Authors:  Cristiana Cipriani; Salvatore Minisola; John P Bilezikian; Davide Diacinti; Luciano Colangelo; Valentina Piazzolla; Maurizio Angelozzi; Luciano Nieddu; Jessica Pepe; Daniele Diacinti
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 5.958

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.