ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2016
Bone status measured by quantitative ultrasound: a comparison with DXA in Thai children.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of bone density measurement techniques: a systematic review of quantitative ultrasound and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Safety of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate-Based Antiretroviral Therapy Regimens in Pregnancy for HIV-Infected Women and Their Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2017Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Factors associated with bone health status of Malaysian pre-adolescent children in the PREBONE-Kids Study.BMC pediatrics · 2021Article
- Bone Health and Its Positive Relationships with Body Composition in Malaysian Schoolchildren: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Validity of quantitative ultrasound and bioelectrical impedance analysis for measuring bone density and body composition in children.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2021Article
- Influence of cancellous bone microstructure on ultrasonic attenuation: a theoretical prediction.Biomedical engineering online · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesQuantitative ultrasound (QUS) is used to measure bone quality and is known to be safe, radiation free and relatively inexpensive compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) that is considered the gold standard for bone status assessments. However, there is no consensus regarding the validity of QUS for measuring bone status. The aim of this study was to compare QUS and DXA in assessing bone status in Thai children. SUBJECTS/
methodsA total of 181 Thai children (90 boys and 91 girls) aged 6 to 12 years were recruited. Bone status was measured by two different techniques in terms of the speed of sound (SOS) using QUS and bone mineral density (BMD) using DXA. Calcium intake was assessed by 24 h diet recall. Pearson's correlation, κ-statistic and Bland and Altman analysis were used to assess the agreement between the methods.
resultsThere was no correlation between the two different techniques. Mean difference (s.d.) of the Z-scores of BMD and SOS was -0.61 (1.27) that was different from zero (P<0.05). Tertiles of Z-scores of BMD and QUS showed low agreement (κ 0.022, P=0.677) and the limits of agreement in Bland and Altman statistics were wide.
conclusionsAlthough QUS is easy and convenient to use, the SOS measurements at the radius seem not appropriate for assessing bone quality status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.