ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2026
REMS versus DXA in older adults: diagnostic concordance for osteoporosis in a geriatric outpatient population.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
REMS showed moderate concordance with DXA but limited interchangeability in geriatric outpatients. Its high negative predictive value supports its use as a practical first-line screening method, especially in adults ≥ 75 years. Findings highlight REMS' potential in settings where DXA is limited and the need for further validation. PURPOSE: Concordance between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry (REMS) in older adults is heterogeneous, and their interchangeability at the patient level is uncertain. The objective of this study is to examine correlations, diagnostic agreement, and performance of REMS versus DXA in geriatric outpatients, focusing on individuals aged ≥ 75 years and BMI.
methodsCross-sectional study of 148 outpatients (median age 75 [70-79] years, 55.4% women). DXA and REMS were performed at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck. We calculated Spearman correlations, diagnostic performance of REMS using DXA as reference, categorical agreement (Cohen's kappa), linear regressions, and Bland-Altman plots, stratified by age (< 75/ ≥ 75 years) and BMI.
resultsDXA-REMS correlations were moderate overall (ρ 0.52-0.64 for BMD and T-scores) but stronger in participants ≥ 75 years (up to ρ 0.75-0.78 at the total hip, p < 0.001). REMS sensitivity was 46-62%, specificity 72-79%, PPV 0.23-0.40, and NPV 0.82-0.93 for osteoporosis (kappa 0.15-0.27). Bland-Altman analyses showed wide limits of agreement, indicating poor interchangeability at the individual level. In adults ≥ 75 years, REMS yielded lower BMD and more negative T-scores at all sites, whereas DXA did not differ by age group. Low BMI was consistently associated with lower BMD and more negative T-scores.
conclusionsREMS shows moderate concordance with DXA and limited interchangeability, but its high NPV supports a pragmatic role as a first-line screening tool in geriatric practice, especially in adults ≥ 75 years and when DXA is unavailable.
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.