Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41671290›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Comparison of different methods for monitoring changes in bone mineral density during follow-up measurements.

Yen-Huai Lin, Michael Mu Huo Teng

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Yen-Huai LinDepartment of Medical Imaging, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Michael Mu Huo TengDepartment of Medical Imaging, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3929-0178

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bone DensityOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHipHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSpine

Identifiers

PMID41671290
PMCPMC12893572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.