Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42613469›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Comparing lumbar computed tomography Hounsfield units and magnetic resonance imaging vertebral bone quality scores for diagnosing osteoporosis and osteopenia in degenerative spinal populations: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.

Omar Lubbad, Akram Hagos, Laila Lubbad, Moadh Hwessa, Giuseppe L Morassi, Nektarios K Mazarakis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Omar LubbadBrighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom. O.lubbad1@uni.bsms.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0402-5610
Akram HagosBrighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Laila LubbadRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland Medical School, Busaiteen, Bahrain.
Moadh HwessaBrighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Giuseppe L MorassiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Nektarios K MazarakisDepartment of Neurosurgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAccurate detection of impaired vertebral bone quality (VBQ) is essential for identifying patients at risk of osteoporosis-related fractures and for optimising surgical planning. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard but is limited by degenerative artefacts and restricted availability. CT-derived Hounsfield units (HU) and MRI-derived VBQ scores provide alternatives for assessing bone quality. This meta-analysis compared HU and VBQ performance for identifying osteopenia and osteoporosis. MATERIALS AND

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched to September 2025. Studies reporting HU or VBQ referenced to DXA or quantitative CT were included. Continuous outcomes were pooled as standardised mean differences (SMD), and diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using bivariate hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models, threshold synthesis, meta-regression, and bootstrap validation.

resultsForty-two studies (9214 participants) were included. Both HU and VBQ distinguished impaired from normal bone quality, although HU demonstrated larger SMDs (osteopenia/osteoporosis -2.62; osteoporosis -1.53) than VBQ (0.77 and 0.81). For osteopenia, pooled areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were 0.87 for HU and 0.75 for VBQ; for osteoporosis, AUCs were 0.86 and 0.79, respectively. Threshold synthesis identified pooled cut-offs for both modalities: 138.9 HU (osteopenia), 104.6 HU (osteoporosis), and VBQ thresholds of 2.83 and 3.14. Validation analyses consistently favoured HU, while VBQ demonstrated greater variability.

conclusionBoth HU and VBQ offer useful assessments of vertebral bone quality, but HU provides higher and more stable diagnostic accuracy. HU thresholds may support opportunistic osteoporosis screening, but their clinical applicability remains uncertain given inter-study heterogeneity, while further refinement of MRI-based VBQ methods is warranted. KEY POINTS: Question How do computed tomography attenuation and magnetic resonance imaging vertebral bone quality scoring compare in identifying osteopenia and osteoporosis on routine imaging? Findings Computed tomography attenuation measurements outperformed magnetic resonance imaging bone quality scoring, demonstrating higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting osteopenia and osteoporosis. Clinical relevance Routine CT and MRI can support opportunistic detection of low bone density, enabling earlier intervention, improved fracture risk stratification, and more informed preoperative assessment without additional imaging or radiation.

Indexed as

Bone densityMagnetic resonance imagingOsteoporosisTomographyX-ray computed

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.