ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2023
Pulse-echo ultrasound measurement in osteoporosis screening: a pilot study in older patients.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-component imaging and ultrasound-based tools for the assessment of fracture risk.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2026Review
- Community-based osteoporosis prescreening using FRAX and portable pulse-echo ultrasound: a pilot study from Western Austria.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Construction of a clinical prediction model for osteoporosis in asymptomatic elderly population based on machine learning algorithm.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Prediction of Fragility Fractures and Mortality in a Cohort of Geriatric Patients.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2024Article
- The Biomechanics of Musculoskeletal Tissues during Activities of Daily Living: Dynamic Assessment Using Quantitative Transmission-Mode Ultrasound Techniques.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- New point-of-care calcaneal ultrasound densitometer (Osteosys BeeTLE) compared to standard dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA mere 25% of patients who need treatment for osteoporosis receive appropriate therapy, partly due to the time-consuming and stressful diagnostic workup for older patients with functional decline.
aimsThe purpose of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of pulse-echo ultrasound measurement of the lower leg for the detection of osteoporosis in older patients, and evaluate the effect of a proposed diagnostic algorithm.
methodsCortical thickness and the so-called density index (DI) were measured prospectively on the lower leg with a pulse-echo ultrasound (PEUS) device. The accuracy of the device was compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the hip. We calculated algorithms combining FRAX® scores and PEUS measures as a guide for specific treatment of osteoporosis.
resultsThree hundred and thirty-three patients aged on average 81 years (82.1% women, 275/333) were included in the study. The sensitivity of the ultrasound device versus DXA for the detection of osteoporosis was 94.4% (84/89), and the specificity was 59% (144/247). The gender-specific sensitivity was 96.2% (75/78) for women and 81.8% (9/11) for men. DISCUSSION: Clinical decisions for the specific treatment of osteoporosis could be based on the proposed algorithm, without additional DXA measurements, in 90.9% (303/333) of the patients.
conclusionOlder patients with a similar risk profile as in our study population may benefit from PEUS, as it is a non-invasive, cost-effective, and efficient diagnostic tool with high accuracy in screening patients for osteoporosis and the risk of fractures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37093523What 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.