Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29802962›Full record

ArticleBone2018

In which patients does lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS) have the largest effect?

P Martineau, W D Leslie, H Johansson, N C Harvey, E V McCloskey, D Hans, J A Kanis

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Bone microstructure and TBS in diabetes: what have we learned? A narrative review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Trabecular Bone Score in Rheumatic Disease.Current rheumatology reports · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Osteoporosis in 10 years time: a glimpse into the future of osteoporosis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Effect of compression fracture on trabecular bone score at lumbar spine.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Article
  20. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Vertebral Fracture Risk.Current osteoporosis reports · 2021
    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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

P MartineauDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
W D LeslieDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Electronic address: bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca.
H JohanssonCenter for Metabolic Bone Diseases and Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK; Institute for Health and Aging, Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
N C HarveyMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK.
E V McCloskeyCenter for Metabolic Bone Diseases and Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
D HansBone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J A KanisCenter for Metabolic Bone Diseases and Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK; Institute for Health and Aging, Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
Australian Catholic University · AUUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 17702Arthritis Research UK 21231Department of Health HTA/10/33/04Medical Research Council G0400491Medical Research Council MC_U147585819Medical Research Council MC_U147585824Medical Research Council MC_U147585827Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/1Versus Arthritis 17702Versus Arthritis 21231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar spine TBS, a texture index derived from lumbar spine dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images, enhances fracture prediction. No studies to date have studied a broad range of clinical variables to determine which patients might experience the greatest benefit from the use of TBS.

methodsUsing the Manitoba BMD Registry, we identified 37,176 subjects with baseline DXA, FRAX®-based fracture probability, lumbar spine TBS, and minimum 5 years of observation. Subgroups considered were based on sex, age, body mass index (BMI), prior fracture, chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), high alcohol use, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), high glucocorticoid use, osteoporotic femoral neck T-score, number of comorbidities, diabetes, secondary osteoporosis, and prior osteoporosis treatment. Non-traumatic major osteoporotic fractures (MOF, n = 3741) and hip fractures (HF, n = 1008) were identified using population-based health services data. We analyzed baseline TBS using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). FRAX-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) per SD reduction in TBS were estimated and tested for interactions. Categorical net reclassification improvement (NRI) was estimated using fixed FRAX-based intervention cut-offs.

resultsAdjusted baseline TBS was significantly lower (p ≤ 0.001) for women (-4.2%), osteoporotic hip T-score (-4.0%), COPD (-2.8%), diabetes (-2.6%), high alcohol use (-2.3%), prior fracture (-2.2%), glucocorticoid use (-1.5%), RA (-0.9%) and secondary osteoporosis (-0.8%), whereas recent osteoporosis therapy was associated with greater TBS (+1.5%). HRs per SD reduction in TBS for fracture prediction were larger for age < 65 vs 65+ (MOF p-interaction = 0.004, HF p-interaction < 0.001), without vs with prior fracture (MOF p-interaction = 0.003, HF p-interaction = 0.048), without vs with glucocorticoid use (HF p-interaction = 0.029), lower vs higher comorbidity score (HF p-interaction < 0.001), and without vs with osteoporosis treatment (MOF p-interaction = 0.005). NRI for using the TBS adjustment to FRAX in all subjects was 1.2% for MOF (p = 0.002) and 1.7% for HF (p = 0.016). NRI was greater in subjects age < 65 y (MOF:1.7%, HF:5.6%), no prior fracture (HF: 2.4%), non-osteoporotic T-score (HF: 3.0%), and high glucocorticoid use (MOF: 3.9%).

conclusionTBS is sensitive to the effects of multiple risk factors for fracture. TBS-adjusted fracture risk assessment resulted in significant improvements for multiple subgroups.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneAbsorptiometry, PhotonAdultAgedFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsFracture predictionFRAXOsteoporosisTrabecular bone score

Identifiers

PMID29802962
PMCPMC6013036
OpenAlexW2804369050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.