SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
The correlation between bone mineral density measured at the forearm and at the lumbar spine or femoral neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global and regional prevalence of osteopenia in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The obesity paradox in bone health: high prevalence of osteoporosis and its non-linear association with BMI among urban elderly in China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Age-specific association between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and bone health: insights from a universal pDXA screening cohort in rural China.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Fatal Free Falls: A Clinical and Forensic Analysis of Skeletal Injury Patterns Using PMCT and Autopsy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines for osteoporosis diagnosis do not recommend forearm dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a standard tool, except in specific cases. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the potential correlation between forearm BMD and BMD at the lumbar and/or hip sites.
methodsThe protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024568756), and the study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. Major databases were systematically searched from their inception until August 2024 to identify studies evaluating the ability of forearm DXA scans to detect osteoporosis, particularly in comparison to central sites like the femoral neck and lumbar spine. A meta-analysis was conducted on studies that reported correlation coefficients between these measurements. Quality assessment was conducted independently by 3 reviewers following Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria. Additionally, a narrative synthesis of the main findings across different patient groups was performed.
resultsThirteen studies were included. Published between 1992 and 2023, these studies involved 5941 participants. Forearm scans exhibited strong correlations with lumbar and femoral sites (pooled effect size 0.603, 95%CI 0.579-0.627 and 0.641, 95%IC 0.600-0.680, respectively) demonstrating good predictive value for central osteoporosis. Despite some result variations, forearm DXA scanning emerged as a valid method, especially when lumbar and femoral measures are challenging.
conclusionsA DXA scan of the distal forearm proves to be a valuable supplementary tool for identifying osteoporotic conditions. This could be particularly relevant in older patients, where conducting lumbar or hip scans is often challenging or not feasible.
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.