Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36699041›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022

Do patients with type 2 diabetes have impaired hip bone microstructure? A study using 3D modeling of hip dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Esther Ubago-Guisado, Enrique Moratalla-Aranda, Sheila González-Salvatierra, José J Gil-Cosano, Beatriz García-Fontana, Cristina García-Fontana, Luis Gracia-Marco, Manuel Muñoz-Torres

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Recent Updates on Diabetes and Bone.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Assessment of fracture risk in diabetic patients.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Extracellular Vesicles Derived from HDrug design, development and therapy · 2024
    Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Esther Ubago-GuisadoEscuela Andaluza de Salud Pública (EASP), Granada, Spain.
Enrique Moratalla-ArandaInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain.
Sheila González-SalvatierraInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain.
José J Gil-CosanoPROFITH "PROmoting FITness and Health through Physical Activity", Research Group, Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), Departament of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Beatriz García-FontanaInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain.
Cristina García-FontanaInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain.
Luis Gracia-MarcoInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain.
Manuel Muñoz-TorresInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain.
Universidad de Granada · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable · ESInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have more risk of bone fractures. However, areal bone mineral density (aBMD) by conventional dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is not useful for identifying this risk. This study aims to evaluate 3D-DXA parameters determining the cortical and trabecular compartments in patients with T2DM compared to non-diabetic subjects and to identify their determinants. Materials and methods: Case-control study in 111 T2DM patients (65.4 ± 7.6 years old) and 134 non-diabetic controls (64.7 ± 8.6-year-old). DXA, 3D-DXA modelling Results: Mean-adjusted values showed higher aBMD (5.4%-7.7%, ES: 0.33-0.53) and 3D-DXA parameters (4.1%-10.3%, ES: 0.42-0.68) in the T2DM group compared with the control group. However, TBS was lower in the T2DM group compared to the control group (-14.7%, ES: 1.18). In addition, sex (β = 0.272 to 0.316) and body mass index (BMI) (β = 0.236 to 0.455) were the most consistent and positive predictors of aBMD (p ≤ 0.01). BMI and P1NP were negative predictors of TBS (β = -0.530 and -0.254, respectively, p ≤ 0.01), while CTX was a positive one (β = 0.226, p=0.02). Finally, BMI was consistently the strongest positive predictor of 3D-DXA parameters (β = 0.240 to 0.442, p<0.05). Conclusion: Patients with T2DM present higher bone mass measured both by conventional DXA and 3D-DXA, suggesting that 3D-DXA technology is not capable of identifying alterations in bone structure in this population. Moreover, BMI was the most consistent determinant in all bone outcomes.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Pelvic BonesAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedCase-Control StudiesCollagen Type IHumansLumbar VertebraeMiddle AgedCollagen Type IProcollagen Type I3D-DXAbone modellingbone QCT/microCTbone remodelingtype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID36699041
PMCPMC9868930
OpenAlexW4315491070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.