Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25690339›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2015

Predictive ability of heel quantitative ultrasound for incident fractures: an individual-level meta-analysis.

E V McCloskey, J A Kanis, A Odén, N C Harvey, D Bauer, J González-Macias, D Hans, S Kaptoge, M A Krieg, T Kwok and 5 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Fragility fracture discriminative ability of radius quantitative ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019
    Guideline
  4. Clinical guidelines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: summary statements and recommendations from the Italian Society for Orthopaedics and Traumatology.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2017
    Guideline
  5. Review
  6. Type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: comprehensive fracture risk relationships in UK Biobank.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Bone Biomarkers Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology · 2024
    Review
  14. In Vivo Assessment of Bone Quality Without X-rays.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Heel quantitative ultrasound (QUS) predicts incident fractures independently of trabecular bone score (TBS), bone mineral density (BMD), and FRAX: the OsteoLaus Study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Article
  20. Review
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

15 authors.

E V McCloskeyAcademic Unit of Bone Metabolism and Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK, e.v.mccloskey@sheffield.ac.uk.
J A Kanis
A Odén
N C Harvey
D Bauer
J González-Macias
D Hans
S Kaptoge
M A Krieg
T Kwok
F Marin
A Moayyeri
E Orwoll
C Gluёr
H Johansson

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/08/014/24067Medical Research Council MR/K006312/1Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe relationship between bone quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and fracture risk was estimated in an individual level data meta-analysis of 9 prospective studies of 46,124 individuals and 3018 incident fractures. Low QUS is associated with an increase in fracture risk, including hip fracture. The association with osteoporotic fracture decreases with time.

introductionThe aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the association between parameters of QUS and risk of fracture.

methodsIn an individual-level analysis, we studied participants in nine prospective cohorts from Asia, Europe and North America. Heel broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA dB/MHz) and speed of sound (SOS m/s) were measured at baseline. Fractures during follow-up were collected by self-report and in some cohorts confirmed by radiography. An extension of Poisson regression was used to examine the gradient of risk (GR, hazard ratio per 1 SD decrease) between QUS and fracture risk adjusted for age and time since baseline in each cohort. Interactions between QUS and age and time since baseline were explored.

resultsBaseline measurements were available in 46,124 men and women, mean age 70 years (range 20-100). Three thousand and eighteen osteoporotic fractures (787 hip fractures) occurred during follow-up of 214,000 person-years. The summary GR for osteoporotic fracture was similar for both BUA (1.45, 95 % confidence intervals (CI) 1.40-1.51) and SOS (1.42, 95 % CI 1.36-1.47). For hip fracture, the respective GRs were 1.69 (95 % CI, 1.56-1.82) and 1.60 (95 % CI, 1.48-1.72). However, the GR was significantly higher for both fracture outcomes at lower baseline BUA and SOS (p < 0.001). The predictive value of QUS was the same for men and women and for all ages (p > 0.20), but the predictive value of both BUA and SOS for osteoporotic fracture decreased with time (p = 0.018 and p = 0.010, respectively). For example, the GR of BUA for osteoporotic fracture, adjusted for age, was 1.51 (95 % CI 1.42-1.61) at 1 year after baseline, but at 5 years, it was 1.36 (95 % CI 1.27-1.46).

conclusionsOur results confirm that quantitative ultrasound is an independent predictor of fracture for men and women particularly at low QUS values.

Indexed as

Age FactorsCalcaneusFollow-Up StudiesHip FracturesHumansOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentUltrasonography

Identifiers

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.