Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25129407›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

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

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

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Best Performance Parameters of HR-pQCT to Predict Fragility Fracture: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andy K O WongDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Electronic address: wongko@mcmaster.ca.
Karen A BeattieDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kevin K H MinHealth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Zamir MeraliDepartment of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Colin E WebberDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Christopher L GordonDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Alexandra PapaioannouDivision of Geriatrics, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Angela M W CheungOsteoporosis Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jonathan D AdachiDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
McMaster University · CAHamilton Health Sciences · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

CIHR 88225-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Part II of this 3-part series demonstrated 1-yr precision, standard error of the estimate, and 1-yr least significant change for volumetric bone outcomes determined using peripheral (p) quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and peripheral magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) modalities in vivo. However, no clinically relevant outcomes have been linked to these measures of change. This study examined 97 women with mean age of 75 ± 9 yr and body mass index of 26.84 ± 4.77 kg/m(2), demonstrating a lack of association between fragility fractures and standard deviation, least significant change and standard error of the estimate-based unit differences in volumetric bone outcomes derived from both pMRI and pQCT. Only cortical volumetric bone mineral density and cortical thickness derived from high-resolution pQCT images were associated with an increased odds for fractures. The same measures obtained by pQCT erred toward significance. Despite the smaller 1-yr and short-term precision error for measures at the tibia vs the radius, the associations with fractures observed at the radius were larger than at the tibia for high-resolution pQCT. Unit differences in cortical thickness and cortical volumetric bone mineral density able to yield a 50% increase in odds for fractures were quantified here and suggested as a reference for future power computations.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAgedAged, 80 and overBody Mass IndexBone DensityCohort StudiesFemaleFractures, BoneHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingOdds RatioOsteoporosisRadiusSensitivity and SpecificityTibiaTomography, X-Ray ComputedClinical sensitivityfragility fracturesleast significant changepMRIpQCT

Identifiers

PMID25129407
PMCPMC5092155
OpenAlexW2048813247

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.