ArticlePloS one2026
Comparison of different methods for monitoring changes in bone mineral density during follow-up measurements.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) changes can be challenging when both the spine and hips are included in follow-up assessments. This study aimed to evaluate BMD changes using different monitoring approaches, including comparisons between the mean bilateral total hip BMD and total hip BMD of each hip separately, spinal BMD and mean bilateral total hip BMD, and spinal BMD and trabecular bone score (TBS). Bone density was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and bone quality was assessed using the TBS. A total of 1,105 postmenopausal women who underwent simultaneous follow-up BMD measurements of the spine and both hips were retrospectively analyzed. In follow-up BMD measurements, the discordance between the mean bilateral total hip BMD and the individual total hip BMDs (right and left hips) was 11.3% when the least significant change (LSC) of the mean bilateral total hip was applied. In contrast, this discordance increased to 19.5% when the average LSC of the right and left hips was used. Spine-hip discordance was also observed, with a 43.5% discordance rate between changes in spinal BMD and mean bilateral total hip BMD. Additionally, discordance between changes in spinal BMD and TBS was noted, with a discordance rate of 58.0%. Analyzing each hip separately is more sensitive to detecting changes than using the mean bilateral total hip BMD. When monitoring mean bilateral total hip BMD on repeat tests, the LSC of the mean bilateral total hip BMD is recommended. Discordance between spine and hip BMD, as well as between spinal BMD and TBS, was observed in follow-up measurements.
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.