Literature DB >> 9351874

Spinal and femoral DXA for the assessment of spinal osteoporosis.

M Jergas1, H K Genant.   

Abstract

The objective was to determine the diagnostic sensitivity of spinal and femoral dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and to study whether a combination of both sites may enhance discriminatory capability in regard to the presence of vertebral fractures. Spinal and femoral DXA were obtained in 324 postmenopausal women, of whom 90 had at least one vertebral fracture. Age-adjusted logistic regression analyses, ROC analyses, and sensitivity-specificity statistics were used to assess the discriminatory ability of spinal and femoral bone density (BMD) alone and in combination. The age-adjusted odds ratios per standard deviation decrease in BMD (OR) for spinal and femoral measurements were comparable (Ward's triangle: OR = 1.62; femoral neck: OR = 1.51; total hip: OR = 1.47; spine: OR = 1.34). Combining spinal and femoral bone density measurements did not improve diagnostic sensitivity of DXA considerably as compared to using BMD of a single site and adjusting the "fracture threshold." The conclusion drawn is that spinal and femoral BMD measurements using DXA have a comparable diagnostic sensitivity for vertebral fracture discrimination. Different individuals at risk for osteoporosis may be identified using both methods. The clinical usefulness of a combination of two bone density measurements needs further study in a prospective setting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Non-programmatic

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9351874     DOI: 10.1007/s002239900347

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int        ISSN: 0171-967X            Impact factor:   4.333


  7 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.  The relationship between the calcaneal bone mineral density and the mental index in post-menopausal females.

Authors:  E Jagelaviciene; A Krasauskiene; R Zalinkevicius; R Kubilius; I Vaitkeviciene
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Endpoint comparison for bone mineral density measurements in North Central Cancer Treatment Group cancer clinical trials N02C1 and N03CC (Alliance).

Authors:  A C Dueck; J Singh; P Atherton; H Liu; P Novotny; S Hines; C L Loprinzi; E A Perez; A Tan; K Burger; X Zhao; B Diekmann; J A Sloan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  [The common occurrence of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis and the value of markers of bone turnover].

Authors:  P Drees; J Decking; V Ghezel-Ahmadi; K-S Delank; B Wilhelm; A Eckardt
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.372

5.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis: visual assessment on conventional versus digital radiographs.

Authors:  Sabine Wagner; Axel Stäbler; Harald Sittek; Harald Bonel; Gerlinde Laeverenz; Maximilian F Reiser; Andrea Baur-Melnyk
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-06-25       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Hounsfield Units on Lumbar Computed Tomography for Predicting Regional Bone Mineral Density.

Authors:  Kyung Joon Kim; Dong Hwan Kim; Jae Il Lee; Byung Kwan Choi; In Ho Han; Kyoung Hyup Nam
Journal:  Open Med (Wars)       Date:  2019-07-19

7.  Vertebral compression fractures: a review of current management and multimodal therapy.

Authors:  Cyrus C Wong; Matthew J McGirt
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2013-06-17
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.