Literature DB >> 7572313

Comparison of methods for defining prevalent vertebral deformities: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.

D M Black1, L Palermo, M C Nevitt, H K Genant, R Epstein, R San Valentin, S R Cummings.   

Abstract

Women with vertebral deformities caused by osteoporosis have more back pain and disability and are at higher risk for subsequent vertebral deformities than women without deformities. Despite the importance of vertebral deformities, there has been a great deal of controversy about how to identify or define them. In order to compare methods for defining vertebral deformities, we studied spinal radiographs from women in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF), a cohort study of 9704 non-black women over age 65 recruited from population-based listings in four clinical centers. Using radiographs obtained at the baseline exam, we compared five methods for defining vertebral deformities: one based on a semiquantitative reading by a radiologist and four using vertebral morphometry. The semiquantitative method was compared with the other methods in a random sample of 503 films, while the morphometric methods were compared with each other in a larger sample of 9575 films. We tested a system of "triage" in which only those films with evidence of deformity were assessed by morphometry. We compared the relationship between deformity, defined by each method, and a variety of clinical criteria including bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, height loss since age 25, back pain, and incidence of subsequent deformity. Semiquantitative reading and three of the four morphometry-based methods provided similar relationships to clinical criteria. The fourth morphometry method (based on ratios of each vertebral height to the corresponding height at T4) produced significantly weaker relationships for several of the clinical validation criteria. Triage of radiographs rarely resulted in missed deformities and did not reduce the performance of any of the methods. We conclude that use of any of the similar methods, with or without triage, provides a valid approach to defining vertebral deformities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7572313     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.5650100610

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


  72 in total

1.  Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density, and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women.

Authors:  K R Phipps; E S Orwoll; J D Mason; J A Cauley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-07

2.  Intra-and inter-reader reliability of semi-automated quantitative morphometry measurements and vertebral fracture assessment using lateral scout views from computed tomography.

Authors:  Y M Kim; S Demissie; R Eisenberg; E J Samelson; D P Kiel; M L Bouxsein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Bone: Is screening for secondary causes of osteoporosis worthwhile?

Authors:  J Chris Gallagher; Adarsh J Sai
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 43.330

4.  Prevalence of vertebral fracture in oldest old nursing home residents.

Authors:  A Rodondi; T Chevalley; R Rizzoli
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Influence of baseline deformity definition on subsequent vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  L J Melton; D E Wenger; E J Atkinson; S J Achenbach; T H Berquist; B L Riggs; G Jiang; R Eastell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-04-28       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  FRAX or fiction: determining optimal screening strategies for treatment of osteoporosis in residents in long-term care facilities.

Authors:  Susan L Greenspan; Subashan Perera; David Nace; Kimberly S Zukowski; Mary A Ferchak; Carroll J Lee; Smita Nayak; Neil M Resnick
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  Observer agreement in pediatric semiquantitative vertebral fracture diagnosis.

Authors:  Kerry Siminoski; Brian Lentle; Mary Ann Matzinger; Nazih Shenouda; Leanne M Ward
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2013-12-10

8.  Analysis of Clinical Features of Hip Fracture Patients with or without Prior Osteoporotic Spinal Compression Fractures.

Authors:  Gang Deuk Kim; Yeung Jin Kim; Soo Uk Chae; Deok Hwa Choi
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2013-05-13

Review 9.  Assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis research.

Authors:  H K Genant; M Jergas
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-03-12       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Incidence and risk factors for a second hip fracture in elderly women. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.

Authors:  R D Chapurlat; D C Bauer; M Nevitt; K Stone; S R Cummings
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-02-13       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.