Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28921128›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2017

Precision of bone density and micro-architectural properties at the distal radius and tibia in children: an HR-pQCT study.

C E Kawalilak, A T Bunyamin, K M Björkman, J D Johnston, S A Kontulainen

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, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Guidelines for the assessment of bone density and microarchitecture in vivo using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Management of primary and secondary osteoporosis in children.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2020
    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

5 authors.

C E KawalilakDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A9, Canada.
A T BunyaminDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A9, Canada.
K M BjörkmanCollege of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, 87 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5B2, Canada.
J D JohnstonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A9, Canada.
S A KontulainenCollege of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, 87 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5B2, Canada. saija.kontulainen@usask.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-0542

Funding

University of Saskatchewan N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision errors need to be known when monitoring bone micro-architecture in children with HR-pQCT. Precision errors for trabecular bone micro-architecture ranged from 1 to 8% when using the standard evaluation at the radius and tibia. Precision errors for cortical bone micro-architecture ranged from 1 to 11% when using the advanced cortical evaluation.

introductionOur objective was to define HR-pQCT precision errors (CV%

methodsWe scanned the distal radius (7% of ulnar length) and tibia (8% of tibia length) of 32 children (age range 8-13; mean age 11.3; SD 1.6 years) twice (1 week apart) using HR-pQCT (XtremeCT1). We calculated root-mean-squared coefficients of variation (CV%

resultsPrecision errors ranged between 1-8 and 1-5% for trabecular bone outcomes (obtained with standard evaluation) and between 1.5-11 and 0.5-6% for cortical bone outcomes (obtained with advanced cortical evaluation) at the distal radius and tibia, respectively. Related LSCs ranged between 3-21 and 3-14% for trabecular bone outcomes and between 4-30 and 2-16% for cortical bone outcomes at the distal radius and tibia, respectively.

conclusionsHR-pQCT precision errors were between 1 and 8% (LSC 3-21%) for trabecular bone outcomes and 1 and 11% (LSC 2-30%) for cortical bone outcomes at the radius and tibia in children. Cortical bone outcomes obtained using the advanced cortical evaluation appeared to have lower precision errors than cortical outcomes derived using the standard evaluation. These findings, combined with better-defined cortical bone contours with advanced cortical evaluation, indicate that metrics from advanced cortical evaluation should be utilized when monitoring cortical bone properties in children.

Indexed as

AdolescentAnthropometryBone DensityCancellous BoneChildFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleRadiusReproducibility of ResultsSex CharacteristicsTibiaTomography, X-Ray ComputedIn vivoLeast significant changePediatricReproducibilityShort-term repeatability

Identifiers

PMID28921128

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.