ArticleSpinal cord2018
Investigating comparability of quantitative computed tomography with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in assessing bone mineral density of patients with chronic spinal cord injury.
Article in Spinal cord, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- MSC-Based Cell Therapy in Neurological Diseases: A Concise Review of the Literature in Pre-Clinical and Clinical Research.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- Can You Feel it? - Correlation Between Intraoperatively Perceived Bone Quality and Objectively Measured Bone Mineral Density.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Effect of a Contrast Agent on Bone Mineral Density Measurement in the Spine and Hip Using QCT-Conversion Factor Recommendation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Bone Mineral Density Post a Spinal Cord Injury: A Review of the Current Literature Guidelines.Cureus · 2022Review
- Time to augment?! Impact of cement augmentation on pedicle screw fixation strength depending on bone mineral density.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designPsychometric study using retrospectively collected data.
objectivesWe investigated the comparability of quantitative computed tomography (qCT) in assessing bone mineral density (BMD) with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We evaluated how well previously suggested normal values for spinal Hounsfield units (HU) correlated with routine DXA results in patients with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). Furthermore, we investigated inter/intra-observer reliability of measuring HU in the spine.
settingAcademic medical center in Tehran, Iran.
methodsSpinal CT scans of 44 male participants with chronic SCI who had undergone DXA studies on the same day were selected. The main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve (AUC) of HU at each spinal region against DXA results of areal BMD. The secondary outcome was inter/intra-observer reliability of measuring HU in the spinal column.
resultsWe found no significant difference between qCT and DXA results (p-value = 0.237, R = 0.188). However, the two methods showed overall unfavorable comparability, with a sensitivity of 0%, 0%, and 80%, specificity of 50%, 90%, and 85%, and area under curve (AUC) of 0.27, 0.53, and 0.83 for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, respectively. The best comparability was achieved at the lumbar region although not statistically significant (p-value = 0.072). Measuring HU was reliable (inter/intra-observer reliability >98%).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that currently proposed normal values result in unfavorable comparability in the cervical and thoracic regions; however, as the agreement improved at the lumbar spine, it is possible that qCT could become an indicator of bone strength with further research.
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.