Literature DB >> 9850355

Comparative assessment of bone mineral measurements using dual X-ray absorptiometry and peripheral quantitative computed tomography.

C A Formica1, J W Nieves, F Cosman, P Garrett, R Lindsay.   

Abstract

A measurement of bone mass is the single most important determinant of future fracture. However, controversy exists as to which technique (dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and which site of skeletal measurement (axial vs appendicular) provides the best prediction of fracture risk. The aims of this study were: (1) to determine the ability of pQCT to predict bone mass of the lumbar spine, proximal femur, and distal forearm measured using DXA, and (2) to compare the ability of DXA and pQCT to discriminate prevalent fractures in women with established osteoporosis. One hundred and sixty-five women were studied, including 47 with established osteoporosis (vertebral, hip or Colles' fractures) as well as 118 who had bone mass measurements to assess osteoporosis risk. Each subject had bone mass measured by DXA at the lumbar spine and femoral neck, and at the distal radius by both DXA and pQCT. In women with fractures, bone mass, when expressed as a standardized score, was in general lower using DXA compared with the appendicular skeleton measured using pQCT. Bone mass determinations at all sites were significantly correlated with each other. The highest correlation coefficients were observed within the axial skeleton. In women with fractures, the highest odds ratios were observed at skeletal regions measured using DXA. Likewise, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were comparable at all skeletal regions measured using DXA; and were significantly greater than the areas under the ROC curves for pQCT measurements. In summary, the strongest discriminators of prevalent fractures were measurements using DXA. Measurements of bone mass at the appendicular skeleton, using either DXA or pQCT, were poorly associated with axial bone mass. PQCT has the poorer ability to discriminate persons with fractures, and appears to be less sensitive than measurements using DXA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9850355     DOI: 10.1007/s001980050092

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


  13 in total

1.  Obesity alters cortical and trabecular bone density and geometry in women.

Authors:  D Sukumar; Y Schlussel; C S Riedt; C Gordon; T Stahl; S A Shapses
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Can geometry-based parameters from pQCT and material parameters from quantitative ultrasound (QUS) improve the prediction of radial bone strength over that by bone mass (DXA)?

Authors:  M Hudelmaier; V Kuhn; E M Lochmüller; H Well; M Priemel; T M Link; F Eckstein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-01-22       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Examining the link between bariatric surgery, bone loss, and osteoporosis: a review of bone density studies.

Authors:  Lesley M Scibora; Sayeed Ikramuddin; Henry Buchwald; Moira A Petit
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.129

4.  Correlation of cervical endplate strength with CT measured subchondral bone density.

Authors:  Nathaniel R Ordway; Yen-Mou Lu; Xingkai Zhang; Chin-Chang Cheng; Huang Fang; Amir H Fayyazi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A Trimodality Comparison of Volumetric Bone Imaging Technologies. Part III: SD, SEE, LSC Association With Fragility Fractures.

Authors:  Andy K O Wong; Karen A Beattie; Kevin K H Min; Zamir Merali; Colin E Webber; Christopher L Gordon; Alexandra Papaioannou; Angela M W Cheung; Jonathan D Adachi
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 2.617

Review 6.  A Comparison of Peripheral Imaging Technologies for Bone and Muscle Quantification: a Mixed Methods Clinical Review.

Authors:  Andy Kin On Wong
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 5.096

Review 7.  Minor, major, low-trauma, and high-trauma fractures: what are the subsequent fracture risks and how do they vary?

Authors:  Amy H Warriner; Nivedita M Patkar; Huifeng Yun; Elizabeth Delzell
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.096

8.  Bone Regeneration of Hydroxyapatite with Granular Form or Porous Scaffold in Canine Alveolar Sockets.

Authors:  Seok Jin Jang; Se Eun Kim; Tae Sung Han; Jun Sik Son; Seong Soo Kang; Seok Hwa Choi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2017 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 9.  Choice of study phenotype in osteoporosis genetic research.

Authors:  Yuan Chen; Hui Shen; Fang Yang; Peng-Yuan Liu; Nelson Tang; Robert R Recker; Hong-Wen Deng
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 10.  Bone density in cerebral palsy.

Authors:  Christine Murray Houlihan; Richard D Stevenson
Journal:  Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.784

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.