ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2026
Comparative effects of lumbar spine bone area from DXA on trabecular bone score and bone mineral density: the Manitoba BMD Registry.
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bone health in asthma: a twofold effect of disease and pharmacotherapy.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artifactual effects of bone area from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) confound bone mineral density (BMD) measurements and in turn complicate fracture risk assessment. Trabecular bone score (TBS) from the lumbar spine DXA image was found to be minimally affected by bone area, which helps to improve fracture risk assessment. PURPOSE: We hypothesized that TBS is less sensitive to the effects of skeletal size than lumbar spine BMD. Our aim was to compare the effects of DXA-derived lumbar spine bone area on lumbar spine TBS and BMD, and how this affects subsequent fracture risk.
methodsWe included individuals aged ≥ 40 years with baseline lumbar spine TBS and BMD. Lumbar spine bone area was stratified into sex-specific quintiles. Least squares mean (LSM) TBS and BMD were estimated according to lumbar spine bone size quintile. Models were adjusted for baseline covariates. Incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) were assessed from population-based linked healthcare data. The effect of TBS on lumbar spine bone area was assessed by comparing the change in model chi-square before and after including TBS in Cox regression models.
resultsThe study population included 56,586 individuals (mean age 63 years, 90% female). Increasing lumbar spine bone area quintile was associated with greater BMD (smallest-largest quintile difference 13.2%), while TBS showed minimal sensitivity to bone area (difference 0.6%). These findings were largely unchanged when fully adjusted for multiple covariates (smallest-largest quintile difference 11.3% for BMD, 0.3% for TBS). TBS was significantly associated with incident MOF in all regression models independent from other covariates, including bone area and BMD. Adjusting for TBS reduced but did not eliminate the effect of bone area.
conclusionTBS is largely unaffected by variation in DXA-derived lumbar spine bone area. Inclusion of TBS may attenuate the confounding effect of lumbar spine bone area on BMD and fracture risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41379324What 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.