ArticleJournal of bone and mineral metabolism2024
Can TBS reference values be a valid indicator for clinical vertebral fracture? A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of bone and mineral metabolism, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Added Value of Trabecular Bone Score in Evaluating Fracture Risk Among Polish Women Aged 40-76 Years.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Trabecular bone score as a possible new surgical recommendation in patients with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTrabecular bone score (TBS) is partially independent of fracture risk. Reference values for TBS have not been established in official guidelines, and thus clinicians often have difficulty interpreting TBS results. This study aimed to investigate whether reference values for TBS could be a valid indicator for clinical vertebral fracture (CVF). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study involved 231 women with CVF and 563 women without CVF aged 60-90 years who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry during 2019-2023. They were divided into osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups according to bone mineral density of the lumbar spine. Reference values for TBS were defined as low (≤ 1.23), intermediate (1.23-1.31), and high (≥ 1.31).
resultsAmong patients without anti-osteoporosis treatment (n = 476), the proportion with low TBS was 36.7% in the CVF group and 10.7% in the control group. The proportion with CVF was higher in the low TBS group than in the intermediate and high TBS groups, especially in the osteoporosis group (p < 0.001). The odds ratio for CVF was higher in the low TBS group than in the intermediate and high especially in patients with normal BMD and osteoporosis. The TBS cut-off values for incidence of CVF in the osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups were 1.224, 1.319, and 1.322, respectively.
conclusionsThe reference value for low TBS (≤ 1.23) was useful as an indicator for CVF, especially in patients with osteoporosis. It is expected that reference values for TBS will be established in official guidelines in the future.
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.