Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26048676›Full record

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

Diagnosis of vertebral fractures using a low-dose biplanar imaging system.

K Briot, J Fechtenbaum, A Etcheto, S Kolta, A Feydy, C Roux

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

K BriotCochin Hospital, Rheumatology Department, INSERM U1153, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. karine.briot@cch.aphp.fr.
J FechtenbaumCochin Hospital, Rheumatology Department, INSERM U1153, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
A EtchetoCochin Hospital, Rheumatology Department, INSERM U1153, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
S KoltaCochin Hospital, Rheumatology Department, INSERM U1153, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
A FeydyCochin Hospital, Radiology Department, INSERM U1153, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
C RouxCochin Hospital, Rheumatology Department, INSERM U1153, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
Inserm · FRDélégation Paris 5 · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledVertebral fractures (VFs) are independent risk factors for new fractures. However, spine radiographs cannot be used as a screening method. EOS® has a good diagnostic value for the diagnosis of VF with a better legibility of upper thoracic spine and a higher concordance between readers compared to vertebral fracture assessment (VFA).

introductionVertebral fractures (VFs) are risk factors for new fractures. However, spine radiographs cannot be used as a screening method for both cost and radiation concerns. EOS® X-ray imaging system which allows the acquisition of biplane images in an upright weight-bearing position with low radiation dose was used. The objective of this study was to compare EOS® to VFA for the diagnosis of VF.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in subjects aged above 50 years with indication for spine imaging. EOS® and VFA of the spine were performed the same day. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), negative predictive value (NPV), and the interobserver precision of EOS® were compared to VFA for the diagnosis of VF.

resultsTwo hundred patients (mean age 66.2 years) were included. At the vertebral level, 2.4 and 3.6 % of vertebrae were not legible using EOS® and VFA, respectively (p = 0.0007). The legibility of spine was significantly affected by scoliosis (odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, p < 0.0001, for EOS®, and OR = 1.8, p = 0.0041, for VFA). Sixty-six patients (33.0 %) and 69 (34.5 %) had at least one VF using VFA and EOS®, respectively. At patient level, Se, Sp, and NPV for the diagnosis of VF of EOS® were 79.7, 91.6, and 99 %, respectively. Concordance between both observers was very good for EOS® (kappa-score = 0.89), higher than for VFA (κ = 0.67).

conclusionsThis study shows that EOS® has a good diagnostic value for the diagnosis of VF with a better legibility of upper thoracic spine and a higher concordance between readers compared to VFA.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAgedBone DensityCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHip JointHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationOsteoporotic FracturesRadiation DosageRisk FactorsSpinal FracturesThoracic VertebraeEOS®OsteoporosisVertebral fractureX-rays

Identifiers

PMID26048676
OpenAlexW654837183

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.