| Literature DB >> 33942553 |
Jin-Hui Zhao1, Hui-Peng Shi1, Da-Jun Jiang1, Ling-Tian Wang1, Sheng-Bao Chen1, Wei-Tao Jia1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of combined independent risk factors in assessing the risk of hip fractures in elderly women.Entities:
Keywords: 25(OH)D; Bone mineral density; Bone turnover markers; Combined indicators; Osteoporotic hip fracture
Year: 2021 PMID: 33942553 PMCID: PMC8274211 DOI: 10.1111/os.12974
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop Surg ISSN: 1757-7853 Impact factor: 2.071
Baseline data of indicators
| Characteristic | Fracture group ( | Control group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 78.73 (7.77) | 78.09 (5.03) | 0.50 |
| Height (cm) | 155.68 (6.40) | 150.97 (6.23) | <0.01 |
| Weight (kg) | 54.04 (8.65) | 52.79 (9.66) | 0.340 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.29 (3.25) | 23.15 (3.97) | 0.101 |
| β‐CTX (ng/L) | 525.91 (307.38) | 330.94 (289.71) | <0.01 |
| N‐MID (ng/mL) | 15.21 (6.09) | 14.47 (7.11) | 0.435 |
| 25(OH)D (ng/mL) | 15.67 (7.23) | 29.53 (10.57) | <0.01 |
| <20 ng/mL | 71 (78.89%) | 22 (20.00%) | <0.01 |
| ≥20 ng/mL | 19 (21.11%) | 88 (80.00%) | <0.01 |
| Total hip BMD (g/cm2) | 0.662 (0.117) | 0.699 (0.111) | 0.022 |
| Femoral neck BMD (g/cm2) | 0.598 (0.106) | 0.637 (0.100) | 0.009 |
| Intertrochanteric BMD (g/cm2) |
0.506 (0.107) ( |
0.518 (0.099) ( | <0.01 |
| Lumbar spine BMD (g/cm2) | 0.831 (0.148) | 0.829 (0.183) | 0.940 |
| Total hip T‐score | −2.4 (0.91) | −2.1 (0.87) | 0.022 |
| Femoral neck T‐score | −2.6 (0.82) | −2.3 (0.80) | 0.001 |
| Lumbar spine T‐score | −2.3 (1.26) | −2.2 (1.55) | 0.872 |
β‐CTX, C‐terminal telopeptide of type‐1 collagen; N‐MID, N‐MID fragment.
Fig. 1Paired t‐test showed BMD of Femoral neck was significantly higher than that of intertrochanter in Femoral neck fracture patients, intertrochanteric fracture patients and healthy controls, which means BMD is less likely to be associated with the exact type of hip fracture. *P < 0.01; CG, Control group; FNF, Femoral neck fracture; ITF, Intertrochanteric fracture.
Correlation between indicators in total population
| Variables | Age | β‐CTX | N‐MID | 25(OH)D | Femoral neck BMD | Total hip BMD | Lumbar spine BMD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | — | 0.114 | 0.068 | −0.109 | −0.303 | −0.348 | −0.014 |
| β‐CTX | 0.114 | — | 0.697 | −0.425 | −0.072 | −0.219 | −0.083 |
| N‐MID | 0.068 | 0.697 | — | −0.237 | −0.122 | −0.277 | −0.122 |
| 25(OH)D | −0.109 | −0.425 | −0.237 | — | 0.211 | 0.189 | −0.037 |
| Femoral neck BMD | −0.303 | −0.072 | −0.122 | 0.211 | — | 0.798 | 0.551 |
| Total hip BMD | −0.348 | −0.219 | −0.277 | 0.189 | 0.798 | — | 0.573 |
| Lumbar spine BMD | −0.014 | −0.083 | −0.122 | −0.037 | 0.551 | 0.573 | — |
β‐CTX, C‐terminal telopeptide of type‐1 collagen; N‐MID, N‐MID fragment.
P < 0.01.
Logistic regression of each indicator
| Model 1 (crude) | Model 2 (adjusted) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables |
|
|
|
|
| Age | 1.016 (0.972 – 1.061) | 0.480 | 1.036 (0.965 – 1.112) | 0.326 |
| Weight | 1.015 (0.985 – 1.046) | 0.339 | 0.988 (0.936 – 1.042) | 0.644 |
| Height | 1.127 (1.072 – 1.186) | <0.01 | 1.207 (1.116 – 1.306) | <0.01 |
| β‐CTX | 1.002 (1.001 – 1.003) | <0.01 | 1.001 (1.000 – 1.002) | 0.153 |
| N‐MID | 1.017 (0.975 – 1.061) | 0.435 | 0.948 (0.896 – 1.004) | 0.068 |
| 25(OH)D | 0.838 (0.797 – 0.880) | <0.01 | 0.837 (0.790 – 0.886) | <0.01 |
| Femoral neck BMD | 0.025 (0.001 – 0.421) | 0.01 | 0.009 (0.000 – 0.969) | 0.048 |
β‐CTX, C‐terminal telopeptide of type‐1 collagen; N‐MID, N‐MID fragment; adjusted for age, height and weight.
Correlation models of elderly hip fracture
| Model | Included indicators | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | AUC (95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25(OH)D | 77.8 | 81.8 | 0.867 (0.818–0.916) |
| 2 | Femoral neck BMD | 53.3 | 63.6 | 0.586 (0.507–0.665) |
| 3 | Height | 63.3 | 71.8 | 0.706 (0.633–0.778) |
| 4 | 25(OH)D and height | 86.7 | 78.2 | 0.898 (0.856–0.940) |
| 5 | 25(OH)D and Femoral neck BMD | 70.0 | 88.2 | 0.867 (0.818–0.916) |
| 6 | 25(OH)D, height and Femoral neck BMD | 84.4 | 79.1 | 0.905 (0.865–0.945) |
P value is the result of Delong test between 25(OH)D and different models.
AUC, area under the curve; β‐CTX, C‐terminal telopeptide of type‐1 collagen; N‐MID, N‐MID fragment.
Pairwise comparison of ROC curves
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Model 1 – Model 2 | 6.438 | <0.01 |
| Model 1 – Model 3 | 3.454 | <0.01 |
| Model 2 – Model 3 | 1.871 | 0.06 |
| Model 1 – Model 4 | 2.351 | 0.02 |
| Model 1 – Model 5 | 0.027 | 0.98 |
| Model 1 – Model 6 | 2.571 | <0.01 |
| Model 4 – Model 5 | 2.163 | 0.03 |
| Model 4 – Model 6 | 0.917 | 0.36 |
| Model 5 – Model 6 | 2.611 | <0.01 |
AUC, area under the curve; β‐CTX, C‐terminal telopeptide of type‐1 collagen; N‐MID, N‐MID fragment. Model 1, 25(OH)D; Model 2, Femoral neck BMD; Model 3, Height; Model 4, 25(OH)D and Height; Model 5, 25(OH)D and Femoral neck BMD; Model 6, 25(OH)D, Height and Femoral neck BMD.