ArticleCalcified tissue international1996
The correlation of bone mineral density and biochemical markers to fracture risk.
Article in Calcified tissue international, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bone Mineral Density, Bone Biomarkers, and Joints in Acute, Post, and Long COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Viruses · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Assessment of the bilateral asymmetry of human femurs based on physical, densitometric, and structural rigidity characteristics.Journal of biomechanics · 2010Article
- Prediction of changes in bone mineral density in postmenopausal women treated with once-weekly bisphosphonates.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2009Article
- Fast and slow bone losers. Relevance to the management of osteoporosis.Drugs & aging · 1998Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone metabolism may be measured indirectly by determining markers for bone formation and bone resorption. Traditionally, total alkaline phosphatase has served to mark bone formation, whereas urine calcium and hydroxyproline, corrected for creatinine, have marked bone resorption. Although these markers have contributed to our understanding of bone metabolism, by themselves they lack the sensitivity and specificity to be helpful in the day-to-day management of patients with osteoporosis. Newer bone markers have been developed and others are currently under development. These markers may be helpful in determining the type of osteoporosis and the response to therapy. Nonetheless, despite their increased sensitivity and specificity, they have not yet been shown to predict future fractures. Many prospective studies have shown that bone mass measured at any site and by any method is inversely related to fracture risk. Site-specific measurement of the bone density of the proximal femur appears to have a stronger relationship to the risk of hip fracture. In predicting spinal fractures, however, measurement of bone density in the lumbar spine does not appear to be substantially superior to measurements of bone density at other sites. The lifetime risk for hip fracture can be estimated from bone mass measurements made in the perimenopausal period. In the future, the combination of baseline perimenopausal bone density and assessments of biochemical markers may better predict future fracture risk; however, this has yet to be shown.
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.