Literature DB >> 9205628

Population-based geographic variations in DXA bone density in Europe: the EVOS Study. European Vertebral Osteoporosis.

M Lunt1, D Felsenberg, J Adams, L Benevolenskaya, J Cannata, J Dequeker, C Dodenhof, J A Falch, O Johnell, K T Khaw, P Masaryk, H Pols, G Poor, D Reid, C Scheidt-Nave, K Weber, A J Silman, J Reeve.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate variations in bone density between 16 European populations, 13 of which were participants in the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study (EVOS). Men and women aged 50-80 years were recruited randomly from local population registers, stratified in 5-year age bands. The other three centres recruited similarly. Random samples of 20-100% of EVOS subjects were invited for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) densitometry of the lumbar spine and/or proximal femur using Hologic, Lunar or Norland pencil beam machines or, in one centre, a Sopha fan-beam machine. Cross-calibration of the different machines was undertaken using the European Spine Phantom prototype (ESPp). Highly significant differences in mean bone density were demonstrated between centres, giving rise to between centre SDs in bone density that were about a quarter of a population SD. These differences persisted when centres using Hologic machines and centres using Lunar machines were considered separately. The centres were ranked differently according to whether male or female subjects were being considered and according to site of measurement (L2-4, femoral neck or femoral trochanter). As expected, bone mineral density (BMD) had a curvilinear relationship with age, and apparent rates of decrease slowed as age advanced past 50 years in both sexes. In the spine, not only did male BMD usually appear to increase with age, but there was a highly significant difference between centres in the age effect in both sexes, suggesting a variability in the impact of osteoarthritis between centres. Weight was consistently positively associated with BMD, but the effects of height and armspan were less consistent. Logarithmic transformation was needed to normalize the regressions of BMD on the independent variates, and after transformation, all sites except the femoral neck in females showed significant increases in SD with age. Interestingly, the effect of increasing weight was to decrease dispersion in proximal femur measurements in both sexes, further accentuating the tendency in women for low body mass index to be associated with osteoporosis as defined by densitometry. It is concluded that there are major differences between BMD values in European population samples which, with variations in anthropometric variables, have the potential to contribute substantially to variations in rates of osteoporotic fracture risk in Europe.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9205628     DOI: 10.1007/bf01622286

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


  26 in total

1.  Milk consumption and bone mineral density in middle aged and elderly women.

Authors:  S Murphy; K T Khaw; H May; J E Compston
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-04-09

2.  The bone mineral content of weight-bearing bones is influenced by the ratio of sitting to standing height in elderly Gambian women.

Authors:  T J Aspray; A Prentice; T J Cole
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 4.398

3.  Bone mineral normative data in Malmö, Sweden. Comparison with reference data and hip fracture incidence in other ethnic groups.

Authors:  M K Karlsson; P Gärdsell; O Johnell; B E Nilsson; K Akesson; K J Obrant
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1993-04

4.  The predictive value of forearm bone mineral content measurements in men.

Authors:  P Gärdsell; O Johnell; B E Nilsson
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  Pre-existing fractures and bone mass predict vertebral fracture incidence in women.

Authors:  P D Ross; J W Davis; R S Epstein; R D Wasnich
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-06-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults.

Authors:  A C Looker; H W Wahner; W L Dunn; M S Calvo; T B Harris; S P Heyse; C C Johnston; R L Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Predicting vertebral fracture incidence from prevalent fractures and bone density among non-black, osteoporotic women.

Authors:  P D Ross; H K Genant; J W Davis; P D Miller; R D Wasnich
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Prediction of fracture risk using axial bone mineral density in a perimenopausal population: a prospective study.

Authors:  H Kröger; J Huopio; R Honkanen; M Tuppurainen; E Puntila; E Alhava; S Saarikoski
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 6.741

9.  Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Effect of spinal osteophytosis on bone mineral density measurements in vertebral osteoporosis.

Authors:  T Masud; S Langley; P Wiltshire; D V Doyle; T D Spector
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-07-17
View more
  41 in total

Review 1.  An update on the diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.592

2.  Risk factors for low bone mineral density among a large group of Norwegian women with fractures.

Authors:  L M Omland; G S Tell; S Ofjord; A Skag
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Changes in bone mineral density in the hip and spine before, during, and after the menopause in elite runners.

Authors:  Alexandra Tomkinson; Jane H Gibson; Mark Lunt; Mark Harries; Jonathan Reeve
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-04-25       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Bone mineral density of the spine and femur in healthy Saudis.

Authors:  M Salleh M Ardawi; Abdulraouf A Maimany; Talal M Bahksh; Hasan A N Nasrat; Waleed A Milaat; Raja M Al-Raddadi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  International variation in proximal femur bone mineral density.

Authors:  M A Paggiosi; C C Glueer; C Roux; D M Reid; D Felsenberg; R Barkmann; R Eastell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Hip fracture and other predictors of anti-osteoporosis drug use in Norway.

Authors:  H M Devold; A J Søgaard; A Tverdal; J A Falch; K Furu; H E Meyer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Bone mineral density in Norwegian premenopausal women.

Authors:  Elin Kolle; Monica Klungland Torstveit; Jorunn Sundgot-Borgen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Epidemiology of Osteoporotic Fractures in Europe: towards biologic mechanisms. The European Prospective Osteoporosis Study Group.

Authors:  J Reeve; A Silman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Risk factors for Colles' fracture in men and women: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  A J Silman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-04-10       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Forearm bone mineral density in an unselected population of 2,779 men and women--the HUNT Study, Norway.

Authors:  Siri Forsmo; Arnulf Langhammer; Lisa Forsen; Berit Schei
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-09-22       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.