Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36060578›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Estimations of bone mineral density defined osteoporosis prevalence and cutpoint T-score for defining osteoporosis among older Chinese population: a framework based on relative fragility fracture risks.

Yì Xiáng J Wáng, Ben-Heng Xiao

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Yì Xiáng J WángDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Ben-Heng XiaoDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study estimated the bone mineral density (BMD) defined osteoporosis prevalence of Chinese women and Chinese men aged ≥50 years. The estimation was based on the 1994 WHO definition of osteoporosis and two assumptions: (I) fragility fracture (FF) risk among older Chinese is half of that of older US Caucasians; (II) FF risk among older Chinese men is half of that of older Chinese women. In addition, we also consider the FF risk among older Chinese is close to those of American Blacks. We estimated that the osteoporosis prevalence based on lumbar BMD, femoral neck BMD, total hip BMD would be 15.8%, 20.4%, and 15.2% for US Caucasian women, 6.7%, 7.8%, and 7.9% for US black women, 7.5%, 7.5%, and 6.7% for Chinese women, 1.8%, 5.7%, and 3.3% for US black men, and 2.0%, 3.8%, and 3.4% for Chinese men. To satisfy the above estimates of osteoporosis prevalence for the Chinese population, in addition to using a local reference database, we suggest that the T-score cutpoints for defining osteopenia and osteoporosis among older Chinese should be adjusted from the conventional WHO thresholds of -2.5 and -1.0. Our suggested revised cutpoint T-score for defining osteoporosis described in this article will be more in line with the original WHO definition and will allow a more meaningful international comparison of disease burden.

Indexed as

bone mineral density (BMD)Chinesefragility fracture (FF)OsteoporosisprevalenceT-score

Identifiers

PMID36060578
PMCPMC9403581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.