Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12955312›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2003

Which bone densitometry and which skeletal site are clinically useful for monitoring bone mass?

Masako Ito, Akifumi Nishida, Jun Kono, Mika Kono, Masataka Uetani, Kuniaki Hayashi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Degenerative changes at the lumbar spine--implications for bone mineral density measurement in elderly women.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2013
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Masako ItoDepartment of Radiology, Nagasaki University School of Medicine, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, 852-8501, Nagasaki, Japan. masako@net.nagasaki-u.ac.jp
Akifumi Nishida
Jun Kono
Mika Kono
Masataka Uetani
Kuniaki Hayashi
Nagasaki University · JPNagasaki Ajisai Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Long-term precision, as well as reproducibility, is important for monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) alteration in response to aging or therapy. In order to investigate which bone densitometry and which skeletal site are clinically useful for monitoring bone mass, we examined the standardized long-term precision of several bone density measurements in 83 healthy Japanese women. Annual BMD measurements were performed for 5 or 6 years using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) on the lumbar spine, radius (EXP5000) and calcaneus (HeelScan); peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) on the radius (Densiscan1000); and quantitative ultrasound (QUS) on the calcaneus (Achilles+). The long-term precision error for the individual subject was given by the standard error of estimate (SEE), and the standardized long-term precision was defined as the percentage coefficient of variation (CV%) divided by the percentage ratio of the annual bone-loss rate. Based on the CV% of spinal DXA, speed of sound (SOS) and diaphyseal pQCT showed significantly higher precision than others, while radial ultradistal (UD) DXA and heel DXA showed significantly lower precision. The long-term precision errors of other measurements were statistically the same as that of the spinal DXA. The spinal DXA, the radial DXA, and pQCT at both the distal metaphysis and diaphysis showed high rates of annual bone loss. The radial trabecular BMD (pQCT) was significantly higher than that of spinal DXA. The annual rates of bone loss of QUS and of heel DXA were significantly lower than that of spinal DXA. Taken together, standardized long-term precision was obtained in the spinal DXA and radial pQCT. In conclusion, spinal DXA and radial pQCT were considered the most useful monitoring method for osteoporosis, while QUS was considered less useful.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAdultAgedBone and BonesBone DensityCalcaneusDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMenopauseMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicOsteoporosisRadiusSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID12955312
OpenAlexW2056071301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.