Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40788492›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Evaluation of bone mineral density in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament utilizing vertebral bone quality and Hounsfield units.

Kangcheng Zhao, Tong Su, JuHan Li, WeiBo Huang, HuaBin Yin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Kangcheng Zhao *Shanghai First People's Hospital (Shanghai General Hospital), Shanghai, China.
Tong Su *Shanghai First People's Hospital (Shanghai General Hospital), Shanghai, China.
JuHan Li *Shanghai First People's Hospital (Shanghai General Hospital), Shanghai, China.
WeiBo HuangShanghai First People's Hospital (Shanghai General Hospital), Shanghai, China. weibo.huang@shgh.cn.
HuaBin YinShanghai First People's Hospital (Shanghai General Hospital), Shanghai, China. yinhuabin0525@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81772856
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHounsfield units (HU), vertebral body quality (VBQ), and T-scores serve as bone mineral density (BMD) indicators. This study aimed to investigate the utility of HU values and VBQ scores in assessing BMD in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), and based on this, compare BMD between cervical OPLL and cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) using VBQ scores, HU values and T-scores, and explore the relationship among cervical segmental HU values and VBQ scores in patients with cervical OPLL.

methodsIn this study, we enrolled 309 patients who underwent posterior cervical single-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylosis at single medical institution. Participants were divided into two groups: the OPLL group and the CSM group. We utilized propensity score matching (PSM) to equate groups. Data collected included demographic characteristics, clinical data, T-scores, cervical VBQ scores and HU values. Correlations among cervical VBQ scores, HU values, and T-scores were assessed. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to compare the diagnostic performance of VBQ scores versus HU values for osteoporosis. T-scores, VBQ scores, and HU values were compared between the matched cohort to elucidate the intergroup in BMD. In addition, cervical variations in cervical VBQ scores and HU values were systematically compared among the OPLL. The matched cohort was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, while VBQ scores and HU values across cervical segments were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test.

resultsWe analyzed 106 successfully matched pairs of patients with OPLL and CSM. In the OPLL group, both the correlation between VBQ scores and T-scores and the correlation between HU values and T-scores were weaker compared to the control group. Notably, within the OPLL cohort, the association between HU values and T-scores exhibited greater strength than the correlation between VBQ scores and T-scores. Furthermore, HU values demonstrated greater predictive value for the prevalence of osteoporosis compared to VBQ scores(AUC, 0.891 VS 0.731). The OPLL exhibited a lower prevalence of osteoporosis and higher T-scores in the hip and lumbar spine compared to CSM. Elevated cervical HU values and reduced VBQ scores were observed. Our analysis revealed heterogeneity in VBQ scores and HU values across cervical spine segments. The VBQ scores and HU values of C6 and C7 were significantly lower than those of C2-C4.

conclusionVBQ scores and HU values are both useful for evaluating BMD in cervical OPLL patients, but HU values provide a more reliable prediction. OPLL patients demonstrate increased BMD in the cervical, lumbar, and hip regions. HU values are more suitable for assessing BMD differences among cervical vertebrae.

Indexed as

Bone DensityCervical VertebraeOssification of Posterior Longitudinal LigamentSpondylosisVertebral BodyAdultAgedFemaleHumansLaminoplastyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedBone densityHounsfield unitsOssification of the posterior longitudinal ligamentOsteoporosisVertebral bone quality

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.