Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39576307›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Assessing bone quality in hounsfield units using computed tomography: what value should be used to classify bone as normal or osteoporotic?

Emily C Courtois, Donna D Ohnmeiss

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Development and internal validation of a clinical-radiological nomogram for osteoporosis screening: A cohort retrospective study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Emily C CourtoisTexas Back Institute, Plano, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3579-0957
Donna D OhnmeissTexas Back Institute Research Foundation, 6020 W Parker Rd., Suite 200, Plano, Texas, 75093, USA. dohnmeiss@texasback.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate threshold values for classifying bone as normal or osteoporotic based on Computed Tomography (CT) Hounsfield Units (HU) and to determine if clinically applicable values could be derived to aid spine surgeons evaluating bone quality using CT.

methodsThis literature review was completed using PubMed and Ovid (MedLine), using syntax specific to bone quality and CT. The included articles were original clinical studies assessing bone quality and utilized composite L1-L4 HU values compared against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) values. Extracted data study descriptors, CT measurement technique, and CT threshold values. CTs were measured from L1-L4 using either axial or sagittal images, and must classify their bone quality findings for any of the following 3 categories: normal, osteopenia, or osteoporosis.

resultsThis review located 34 studies measuring bone density using CT with threshold values, of which, 10 were included in the final review. Number of patients ranged from 74 to 283 and cohort ages from 20s to 70.6 years. CT threshold values for assessing normal and osteoporotic bone quality ranged from 150 to 179 and 87 to 155, respectively. From combining values across studies, a HU value of ≥ 170 HU was associated with normal bone and ≤ 115 HU with osteoporosis.

conclusionThere is variation in HU values used to differentiate normal from compromised bone quality, even after limiting studies. For patients with HU values between or near 170 or 115 HU, a DEXA scan may be warranted for further evaluation. With ongoing investigation in this area, threshold values for classifying bone quality using CT will be continually refined.

Indexed as

Bone DensityLumbar VertebraeOsteoporosisTomography, X-Ray ComputedAbsorptiometry, PhotonHumansBone densityClassificationComputed tomographyLumbar spine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.