Papers
Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures
Deborah Marshall, research associate,a Olof Johnell, professor,b Hans Wedel, professor ca Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, Box 16158, S-10324 Stockholm, Sweden, b Department of Orthopaedics, Malmo General Hospital, S-21401 Malmo, Sweden, c Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Nordic School of Public Health, Box 12133, S-40242 Gothenburg, Sweden
Correspondence to: Professor Wedel.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the ability of measurements of bone density in women to predict later fractures.
Design: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies published between 1985 and end of 1994 with a baseline measurement of bone density in women and subsequent follow up for fractures. For comparative purposes, we also reviewed case control studies of hip fractures published between 1990 and 1994.
Subjects: Eleven separate study populations with about 90000 person years of observation time and over 2000 fractures.
Main outcome measures: Relative risk of fracture for a decrease in bone mineral density of one standard deviation below age adjusted mean.
Results: All measuring sites had similar predictive abilities (relative risk 1.5 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 1.6)) for decrease in bone mineral density except for measurement at spine for predicting vertebral fractures (relative risk 2.3 (1.9 to 2.8)) and measurement at hip for hip fractures (2.6 (2.0 to 3.5)). These results are in accordance with results of case-control studies. Predictive ability of decrease in bone mass was roughly similar to (or, for hip or spine measurements, better than) that of a 1 SD increase in blood pressure for stroke and better than a 1 SD increase in serum cholesterol concentration for cardiovascular disease.
Conclusions: Measurements of bone mineral density can predict fracture risk but cannot identify individuals who will have a fracture. We do not recommend a programme of screening menopausal women for osteoporosis by measuring bone density.
|
Key messages
|
Introduction
Osteoporosis--low bone density leading to fractures after minimal trauma--is a considerable problem in health care because of its potentially severe consequences for both the patient and the health care system if a fracture occurs. Estimates of the prevalence of osteoporosis vary with the specific definition chosen, but the World Health Organisation has estimated that 30% of all women aged over 50 (postmenopausal) have osteoporosis according to a definition of bone mineral density being more than 2.5 standard deviations below the mean for young healthy adult women at any site.1 Hip fractures are the most serious and costly potential result of osteoporosis: the 300 000 cases in 1991 in the United States were associated with a total cost of about $5bn in 1990, including fees for nursing homes and private and public care services.2 This is also a major problem in other countries. In Europe the Scandinavian countries currently have the highest prevalence of osteoporotic fractures, and the incidence is increasing more than would be expected from demographic changes in age and sex ratio.3
It is therefore important to find ways of preventing osteoporotic fractures. Measuring bone mineral density has been discussed as one method for early identification of individuals at high risk of a fracture, although it is only one of a number of risk factors for fracture.4 5 6 7 Bone density, however, is a continuous variable, and it has been criticised as a screening measure because case-control studies of hip fracture showed a large overlap in the bone densities of patients with a fracture and in the densities of those without a fracture.8
The aim of our study was to determine, by a systematic review of the literature for all prospective studies, if measurements of bone density in women could predict fractures of any type. This was undertaken as one component for a report on measurements of bone density from the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care.9 For comparison, we also reviewed case-control studies of hip fractures.
Methods
We identified literature for this report by several methods. Computer databases of the medical literature--Medline, EMBASE, and SweMed--were the primary source but were supplemented with reviews of reference lists of selected papers, references provided by colleagues, and known grey literature on this topic. Bone density must have been measured by absorptiometry (single or dual energy, photon or x ray), quantitative computed tomography, quantitative magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasound scanning. We did not include studies using roentgenograms or metacarpal measurements. We restricted all searches to articles published from 1985 to 1994. In a preliminary search we found only papers published in English, and we restricted all later searches to articles in English. In an attempt to increase the comparability of the technologies used, methods of measurement, and analytic approaches we excluded articles published before 1985. Bone densitometry with current methods has been performed only since the early 1980s. We based our searches on the keywords "bone and bones," "bone density," "bone mineral content," and "densitometry" combined with the different techniques and equipments. We identified a total of 1084 articles in this way, and 229 studies fulfilled our requirements.
PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDIES
These were prospective studies with a baseline measurement of bone density and subsequent follow up for fractures. Fractures must have occurred after the bone density measurement had been taken. Study subjects must not have received treatments for bone or hormonal related disorders. The subjects may, however, have had previous fractures at the start of the study. We included only studies of adult women. After we had identified potential articles, they were reviewed independently for inclusion in the overview by three people (an expert in osteoporosis, an epidemiologist or biostatistician, and a worker in public health). Any disagreements about including a study were resolved through discussion.
Before evaluating the results, the reviewers evaluated each paper individually for quality with an instrument developed for our analysis. This considered the potential bias in the study resulting from how the patients were selected, the numbers and types of patients who were lost to follow up, and the method used to identify fractures (the primary outcome in this study). The reviewers then gave each study a quality score, with a maximum possible score of 25.
Calculations
In most cases, there was more than one publication for each study population. We sometimes used different papers to calculate the predictive value of bone density measured at different sites, but in general we used the paper with the longest follow up time for each population as the basis for calculations.
As the main outcome measure of our analysis, we chose relative risk of fracture associated with a decrease in bone density of one standard deviation adjusted for age. This compares the risks for two women of the same age with a difference of 1 SD in their bone density. This measure is robust in that it is independent of population characteristics and measuring devices, and it could also be calculated from all recent studies of good quality.
For pooling study results to a common measure, we used slight modifications of conventional methods.10 Most of the reviewed papers used the Cox proportional hazards model or logistic analysis for estimating relative risks or odds ratios adjusted at least for age. The risks in the reviewed papers were all small, and we considered relative risks and odds ratios as equivalent. One paper calculated risks based on fractures and not on individual people as the statistical entity. Several fractures in one individual do not contribute with independent observations, which underestimates the variance in the analysis.11 We therefore estimated the number of individuals and recalculated the variance in order to control for this bias.
All risk measures were calculated for a 1 SD decrease in bone density. We then pooled these risks to a common risk ratio including all relevant studies and calculated the 95% confidence interval for the pooled risk ratio. More formally, let RR
As an alternative method for weighting the individual relative risks, we chose weights proportional to the quality scores described above and calculated the pooled estimates based on scores. We also performed tests of homogeneity at a level of P=0.05.
We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and the population attributable risk fraction for a cut point in bone density of 1 SD below the age adjusted mean. We chose three different values for the lifetime incidence of fracture: 3%, 15%, and 30%. A value of 3% represents a low incidence--a group of Swedish women with low risk for hip fractures (not more than two risk factors) had a cumulative incidence of fractures over 10 years of 3% (O Johnell, unpublished data). A lifetime incidence of 30% is possible for a group of women at high risk based on predictors other than bone density (such as tendency to fall). The population attributable risk fraction is the proportion of disease in the population that theoretically could be eliminated if those people with bone density below a certain cut point could be treated to restore normal bone density. The population attributable risk fraction is defined as (I-I
In addition, we compared the ability of bone density measurements to predict fractures with the predictive abilities of blood pressure for stroke (data from Selmer12) and of smoking and serum cholesterol concentration for heart disease (from H Wedel, unpublished data). In order to compare these risk factors for different endpoints, we calculated the relative risk for a change of 1 SD of each risk factor.
CASE-CONTROL STUDIES
These were case-control studies published since 1990 that compared the bone mineral density in women with hip fracture with that in age matched controls who represented the normal population. The measurement of bone density in cases must have occurred within 14 days of fracture. We excluded studies published before 1990 because these have been reviewed elsewhere.5 8 13
In order to compare the results from the cohort and case-control studies, we translated difference in bone mineral density between cases and controls into odds ratios. Since the bone mineral density can be approximated by normal distributions in both cases and controls with the same variance, we used exp(
B) as the odds ratio for a difference of 1 SD in bone mineral density, where B is the standardised difference in bone mineral density between cases and controls with the variance in controls being used for standardisation. We pooled the results of the studies after using the size of each study for weighting.
Results
PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDIES
Table 1 give details of the 11 study populations, consisting of about 90000 person years of observation and more than 2000 fractures, that were suitable for inclusion in our analysis.14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Follow up ranged from 1.8 to 24 years. We found no association between the relative risk for decrease in bone density of 1 SD and the length of follow up. The average total scores for quality of the studies ranged from 11.7 to 19.3 out of a possible score of 25. The quality score was not related to the size of the study measured by person years of follow up.
Table 1--Summary details of prospective studies of predictive value of bone density for fractures that were included in meta-analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean age Relative risk
Size of at entry Average Site of bone Type of fracture (95% confidence
cohort to study years of Quality density (No of women with interval) adjusted
Study population followed (years) follow up score measurement fracture) for age
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hui et al14 15
Indiana Medical Center, USA 386 57 6.7 16.8 Proximal radius Forearm (17) 4.4 (2.2 to 8.7)
Outpatients Hip (32)
All non-spine (89) 2.6 (2.0 to 3.4)
135 5.5 Proximal radius Forearm (17) 1.2 (0.6 to 2.2)
Inpatients Hip (32) 1.9 (1.4 to 2.7)
All non-spine (89) 1.5 (1.2 to 2.0)
Gardsell et al16 17
Malmo General Hospital, Sweden 1076 63 13.0 17.2 Proximal radius Hip (43) 2.5 (1.3 to 4.8)*
Vertebral (70) 1.9 (1.05 to 3.5)*
Fragility (154) 1.9 (1.05 to 3.5)*
Distal radius Hip (43) 2.1 (1.06 to 4.1)*
Vertebral (70) 2.4 (1.10 to 5.2)*
Fragility (154) 2.6 (1.6 to 4.1)*
15.0 Proximal radius Fragility (96) 3.2 (1.5 to 4.5)
Distal radius Fragility (96) 2.6
Wasnich and colleagues18 19 20 21 22
Kuakini Medical Center, Honululu, USA 109818 19 20 63 4.7 17.0 Distal radius Vertebral (61) 2.0 (1.5 to 2.6)
Proximal radius Vertebral (61) 2.0 (1.5 to 2.7)
Calcaneus Vertebral (61) 2.4 (1.8 to 3.2)
Lumbar spine Vertebral (61) 2.2 (1.7 to 3.0)
Spine All (15) 2.0 (1.2 to 3.0)
64921 22 Calcaneus Vertebral (83) 1.8 (1.4 to 2.4)
Cummings and colleagues23 24 25 26 27 28 29
University of California, USA 813423 73 1.8 18.8 Middle radius Hip (65) 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9)
Distal radius Hip (65) 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1)
Calcaneus Hip (65) 2.0 (1.5 to 2.7)
Proximal femur Hip (65) 2.7 (2.0 to 3.6)
Lumbar spine Hip (65) 1.6 (1.2 to 2.2)
970424 72 2.2 Distal radius Distal forearm (171) 1.7 (1.4 to 2.1)
Proximal humerus (79) 2.0 (1.5 to 2.7)
813425 73 0.7 Distal radius All non-spine (191) 1.4 (1.2 to 1.7)
Proximal radius All non-spine (191) 1.3 (1.1 to 1.5)
Calcaneus All non-spine (191) 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8)
Proximal femur All non-spine (191) 1.4 (1.2 to 1.6)
Lumbar spine All non-spine (191) 1.4 (1.2 to 1.6)
970426 27 72 2.2 Distal Radius Humerus (79) 2.0 (1.6 to 2.7)
(SD 1.6) Hip (78) 1.5 (1.1 to 1.9
Proximal Radius Humerus (79) 2.0 (1.6 to 2.5)
Hip (78) 1.4 (1.1 to 1.8)
Calcaneus Humerus (79) 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4)
Hip (78) 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)
458628 29 74 4.9 Calcaneus Vertebral (314) 1.7 (1.3 to 2.3)
Hip 2.7 (1.8 to 4.0)
All (695) 1.5 (1.4 to 1.7)
Melton et al30
Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, 304 60 8.3 19.3 Lumbar spine Distal forearm (<22)+ 1.8 (1.0 to 3.1)
Rochester, USA (95% confidence Proximal femur (<15)+ 1.9 (0.9 to 3.7)
interval Vertebral (37)+ 1.9 (1.3 to 3.0)
0.1 to 10.2) All (93)+ 1.4 (1.1 to 1.8)
Proximal femur Distal forearm (<22)+ 1.6 (1.1 to 2.4)
Proximal femur (<15)+ 2.3 (1.2 to 4.6)
Vertebral (37)+ 1.5 (0.9 to 2.4)
All (93)+ 1.2 (1.0 to 1.6)
Femoral neck Distal forearm (<22)+ 1.6 (0.9 to 2.6)
Proximal femur (<15)+ 2.3 (1.2 to 4.5)
Vertebral (37)+ 1.5 (1.1 to 2.7)
All (93)+ 1.2 (1.0 to 1.8)
Distal radius Distal forearm (<22)+ 2.7 (1.5 to 4.9)
Proximal femur (<15)+ 2.6 (1.2 to 5.4)
Vertebral (37)+ 1.3 (0.9 to 2.1)
All (93)+ 1.1 (0.8 to 1.5)
Middle radius Distal forearm (<22)+ 1.6 (0.9 to 3.1)
Proximal femur (<15)+ 1.3 (0.6 to 2.7)
Vertebral (37)+ 2.2 (1.4 to 3.6)
All (93)+ 1.2 (0.9 to 1.6)
Nordin and colleagues31 32
Royal Adelaide Hospital, Australia 492 Not 5.0 13.5 Forearm All (57) 1.4 (1.1 to 1.9)
specified
Lester et al33
University of North Carolina, USA 383 Not 4.0 14.0 Forearm Wrist (31) 1.6 (1.1 to 2.3)
specified Hip
Porter et al34
University Medical School, Aberdeen, UK 1414 83 2.0 11.7 Calcaneus Hip (73) 2.0 (1.5 to 2.5)
Nguyen et al35
St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, Australia 1080 69 3.2 19.0 Femoral neck All (192) 2.4 (1.9 to 3.0)
Cheng et al36
University of Jyvaskyla, Finland 320 76 2.8 18.3 Calcaneus All (27) 1.7 (1.0 to 2.6)
Heaney and colleagues37 38
Creighton University, Omaha, USA 191 24.0 19.3 Proximal radius All (<31)+ 1.7 (1.1 to 2.6)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Confidence intervals estimated by us from data reported in the paper.
+No of women with fractures estimated from its upper limit (number of fractures). |
We divided the pooled estimates from the meta-analysis by type of fracture--forearm (distal end of the radius), hip, vertebral, and all types--and by measurement site--proximal radius, distal radius, hip lumbar spine, calcaneus, and all sites (overall estimate). The results of this analysis show that most measuring sites had virtually the same predictive ability for a decrease of 1 SD in bone density (table 2). There were two exceptions to this general observation. Measurement at the spine seemed to have a better predictive ability for spine fractures (relative risk 2.3 (95% confidence interval 1.9 to 2.8)), while measurement at the hip was better for predicting hip fractures (relative risk 2.6 (2.0 to 3.5)). The test of homogeneity was rejected for measurements of bone density at the proximal and distal radius and hip for all types of fracture. Weighting for quality scores gave similar results so no further analysis was done in this respect.
Table 2--Summary of meta-analysis: relative risk (95% confidence interval) of fracture for 1 SD decrease in bone density below age adjusted mean --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Site of Fracture type measurement of------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bone density Forearm Hip Vertebral --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measurement by methods other than ultrasound Proximal radius 1.8 (1.5 to 2.1)14 15 16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2.1 (1.6 to 2.7)14 15 16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2.2 (1.7 to 2.6)14 15 18 19 20 21 22 30 Distal radius 1.7 (1.4 to 2.0)16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1.8 (1.4 to 2.2)16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1.7 (1.4 to 2.1)16 17 18 19 20 21 22 30 Hip 1.4 (1.4 to 1.6)23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2.6 (2.0 to 3.5)23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1.8 (1.1 to 2.7)30 Lumbar spine 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8)23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1.6 (1.2 to 2.2)23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2.3 (1.9 to 2.8)*RF 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, Calcaneus 1.6 (1.4 to 1.8)23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2.0 (1.5 to 2.7)23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2.4 (1.8 to 3.2)18 19 20 21 22 All 1.6 (1.5 to 1.7)14 15 16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2.0 (1.7 to 2.4)14 15 16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2.1 (1.9 to 2.3)14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Measurement by ultrasound Calcaneus 2.2 (1.8 to 2.7)23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 1.8 (1.5 to 2.2)18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Test of homogeneity rejected (P<0.05). continued Table 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.5 (1.3 to 1.6)*14 15 16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 37 38 1.4 (1.3 to 1.6)*16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33 1.6 (1.4 to 1.8)*23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 1.5 (1.4 to 1.7)18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8)23 24 25 26 27 28 29 36 1.5 (1.4 to 1.6)*14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Table 3 shows the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and the population attributable risk fraction for a cut point in bone density of 1 SD below the age adjusted mean. In this case the odds ratio between those below the cut point compared with those above was 4.4. The sensitivity and population attributable risk decreased with increasing lifetime incidence of fractures. The positive predictive value was large for the higher lifetime incidences.
Table 3--Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value,
and population attributable risk for a cut point in bone
density of 1 SD below age adjusted mean associated with
three different lifetime incidences of hip fracture. Relative
risk of hip fracture is assumed to be 2.6 per 1 SD
decrease in bone density
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime incidence (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3 15 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitivity (%) 47 37 34
Specificity (%) 83 88 89
Positive predictive value (%) 9 36 58
Population attributable risk (%) 36 26 21 |
Table 4 shows the predictive ability of bone density measurements in comparison with that of risk factors for stroke and heart disease. A 1 SD decrease in bone mass was roughly similar to (or, for hip measurement, better than) the predictive ability of a 1 SD increase in blood pressure for stroke and better than a 1 SD increase in serum cholesterol concentration for cardiovascular disease.
Table 4--Relative risk of fracture for 1 SD decrease in bone density compared with relative risks in women for stroke
and coronary heart disease
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk of coronary heart disease
Risk of any fracture Risk of stroke for --------------------------------------------
Risk of hip fracture for 1 SD decrease in 1 SD increase in For 1 SD increase in
Age for 1 SD decrease in bone density at diastolic blood serum cholesterol
(years) bone density at hip any site pressure concentration For smoking*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-39 2.2
40-49 2.1 1.5 1.7
50-59 1.8 1.4 1.7
60-69 1.7 1.2 1.7
70-79 2.6 1.5 1.4
80-89 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comparing smoking 10-14 cigarettes a day with not smoking (comparable to 1 SD difference in smoking habits). |
CASE-CONTROL STUDIES
Table 5 gives details of the eight case-control studies of hip fracture that met the inclusion criteria.39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The average odds ratio for a difference of 1 SD in bone density was 2.7, 2.8, 2.1, and 1.8 for bone density measurements at the femoral neck, trochanter, Ward's triangle, and lumbar spine respectively. Thus these results also suggest that measurements of bone density at the hip are superior to measurement at the spine for predicting hip fractures.
Table 5--Summary of case-control studies of hip fracture in women (published since
1990)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference Odds ratio
in bone of fracture
density for 1 SD
Relative between decrease
No of No of weight of cases and in bone
Study cases controls study (%) controls* density
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement at femoral neck
Greenspan et al 199445 56 70 15 -0.7 2.0
Sugimoto et al 199446 38 162 15 -0.9 2.5
Karlsson et al 199344 67 70 17 -0.4 1.5
Kanbera et al 199243 32 133 13 -1.2 3.3
Libanati et al 199242 29 13 4 -2.2 9.0
Nakamura et al 199241 100 35 13 -0.4 1.5
Perloff et al 199140 18 50 6 -1.1 3.0
Chevalley et al 199139 57 82 17 -1.2 3.3
Weighted average -0.90 2.68
Measurement at trochanter
Karlsson et al 199344 67 70 32 -0.6 1.8
Kanbera et al 199243 32 133 24 -1.3 3.7
Libanati et al 199242 29 13 8 -1.8 5.8
Nakamura et al 199241 100 35 24 -0.5 1.7
Perloff et al 199140 18 50 12 -1.3 3.7
Weighted average -0.97 2.79
Measurement al Ward's triangle
Karlsson et al 199344 67 70 32 -0.5 1.7
Kanbera et al 199243 32 133 24 -0.7 2.0
Libanati et al 199242 29 13 8 -1.6 4.8
Nakamura et al 199241 100 35 24 -0.4 1.5
Perloff et al 199140 18 50 12 -1.0 2.7
Weighted average -0.68 2.10
Measurement at lumbar spine
Sugimoto et al 199446 38 162 22 -0.5 1.7
Karlsson et al 199344 67 70 25 -0.6 1.8
Kanbera et al 199243 32 133 19 -0.5 1.7
Perloff et al 199140 18 50 10 -0.6 1.8
Chevalley et al 199139 57 82 24 -0.7 2.0
Weighted average -0.57 1.81
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Expressed in terms of SDs of control mean value. |
Discussion
PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF BONE DENSITY MEASUREMENTS
For how long can a single bone mineral measurement predict fractures? The longest follow up was for 24 years, and the relative risk of reduced bone density was 1.7 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.6). However, the study cohort was only 191 women. Gardsell et al observed a similar risk in an early study with 11 years of follow up, which showed a decreasing ability to detect fracture risk after the age of 70-80.16 Black et al found a slightly smaller risk ratio after two years of follow up.25
Another question is whether bone density has the same ability to predict fractures at all ages. In a recent paper Nevitt et al showed that bone mineral density could predict fractures equally well over a three year period up to the age of 80: "Thus it seems that an old age bone mineral density can predict fracture, at least for a 3-year-period. However, the life expectancy in Sweden at age of 80 is 8.4 years. Another problem is that very few studies, except Gardsell and others, have studied the predictive ability between age 50 to 60."28
There are few studies in men, but the predictive ability of bone density measurements seems to be similar for men and women.35
Homogeneity was rejected for measurements of bone density at the proximal radius, distal radius, and hip for all types of fracture (table 2). It seems natural that the studies involving a specific measurement site and a distinct fracture type were more homogeneous, and the results in these studies should be more reliable. A heterogeneity test10 has low power to detect differences between studies and is not a sensible test of homogeneity. When homogeneity was rejected we did not perform a random effect model because of the small numbers of studies but noted the heterogeneity as a warning.
The predictive ability of ultrasound measurement of bone density is uncertain since only one published paper has used this method.34 Two recent abstracts have also been published. One described a retrospective study which showed that bone density measured by ultrasound at the calcaneus was as good in predicting hip fracture as measuring bone density by dual energy x ray or single energy photon absorptiometry at the hip.29 The other abstract reported similar results for vertebral fractures, but, because the ultrasound measurements were not highly correlated compared with other bone density methods, it was suggested that ultrasound might measure different aspects of bone strength to provide complementary information about fracture risk.22
POTENTIAL FOR SCREENING
Bone density measurements can predict risk of fracture but cannot identify individual people who will have a fracture. As with most continuous predictors in medicine, there are no obvious cut off values for screening, and consideration must be given to the potential risks and harms associated with screening. This conclusion is supported by both the prospective cohort data and the case-control data for hip fractures. However, the problem of false positives in predicting fractures may not be as stressful for patients as it would be in screening for cancer.
Law et al made a similar analysis of case-control studies of hip fracture to ours and found a much lower predictive ability for measurements of bone density (odds ratios of 1.35 for all measurement sites and 1.7 for measurement at the femoral neck). They calculated a detection rate of 30% and a false positive rate of 15% for measuring bone density at the femoral neck as a screening tool, based on a cut off of 1 SD below the mean density of the controls.6 We repeated their calculations with our more recent data for hip fractures and bone density measured at the hip (odds ratio 2.6) and found a detection rate of 50% and a false positive rate of 15%.
The sensitivity and population attributable risk for bone density decreased with increasing lifetime incidence of fractures (table 3). This is because the cut point in bone density was defined in the whole population and not defined among the subjects who would remain free of a fracture. In calculating the population attributable risk fraction, which indicates the potential for preventing fractures, we assumed that women with bone densities below the cut point could be treated successfully to increase their bone density to the mean value of the population.
The value of the age adjusted relative risk for 1 SD decrease in bone density should be interpreted cautiously since this assumes that there is a linear relation in the logarithm of the risk, whereas the relation is probably steeper. In a cohort of elderly women Nevitt et al found that those with bone mineral densities below the lowest quartile of bone density (age adjusted) had an incidence of hip fractures of 32/1000 person years compared with incidences of 14/1000, 10.3/1000, and 1.4/1000 for the women with bone densities in the other three quarters (in ascending order) respectively.28 These data suggest that the overall risk ratio for a 1 SD decrease in bone density among women with low bone densities may underestimate the risk since the risk gradient is steeper in the lower ranges of bone density values.
Using bone density measurements alone to predict fractures is analogous to using blood pressure to predict stroke and serum cholesterol concentration to predict coronary heart disease. We found that the predictive ability of bone mass was similar to (or, for hip measurement, better than) that of blood pressure for stroke12 and better than that of serum cholesterol for cardiovascular disease (H Wedel, unpublished data).
Even though bone density can predict fractures in a similar way as blood pressure for stroke, we cannot recommend a screening programme for osteoporosis by measuring bone density. There is a wide overlap in the bone densities of patients who develop a fracture and those who do not. Thus, bone mineral density can identify people who are at increased risk of developing a fracture, but it cannot with any certainty identify individuals who will develop a future fracture. As such, it could possibly be used for selective screening, but there are other factors that speak against this. Too little is known about the practical aspects of such a programme, including compliance rates for attending a screening programme and compliance to the treatment, and there is little information on the effectiveness of treatment, particularly any that show a reduction in fractures.1 47 48
Funding: Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care.
Conflict of interest: None.
- WHO Study Group on Assessment of Fracture Risk and its Application to Screening for Post Menopausal Osteoporosis. Assessment of fracture risk and its application it screening for post menopausal osteoporosis: report of a WHO study group. Geneva: WHO, 1994. (WHO technical series 843.)
- US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Hip fracture outcomes in people age 50 and over--background paper. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994. (OTA-BP-H-120.)
- Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ III. Hip fractures in the elderly: a worldwide projection. Osteoporos Int 1992;2:285-9. [Medline]
- Melton LF III, Eddy DM, Johnston CC Jr. Screening for osteoporosis. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:516-28.
- Law MR, Wald NJ, Meade TW. Strategies for prevention of osteoporosis and hip fracture. BMJ 1991;303:453-9.
- Grisso JA, Delsey JL, Strom BL, Chiu GY, Maislin G, O'Brien LA, et al. Risk factors for falls as a cause of hip fracture in women. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1326-31. [Abstract]
- Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, Stone D, Fox KM, Ensrud KE, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. N Engl J Med 1995;332:767-73.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Ross PD, Davis JW, Vogel JM, Wasnich RD. A critical review of bone mass and the risk of fractures in osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 1990;46:149-61. [Medline]
- Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. Bone density measurement. (In press.)
- Thompson SG. Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction. Stat Methods Med Res 1993;2:173-92. [Medline]
- Windeler J, Lange S. Events per person year--a dubious concept. BMJ 1995;310:454-6.
[Free Full Text] - Selmer R. Blood pressure and twenty-year mortality in the city of Bergen, Norway. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:428-40.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Cummings SR. Are patients with hip fractures more osteoporotic? Am J Med 1985;78:487-94.
- Hui SL, Slemenda CW, Johnston CC Jr. Baseline measurement of bone mass predicts fracture in white women. Ann Intern Med 1989;111:355-61.
- Hui SL, Slemenda CW, Johnston CC Jr. Age and bone mass as predictors of fracture in a prospective study. J Clin Invest 1988;81:1804-9.
- Gardsell P, Johnell O, Nilsson BE, Gullberg B. Predicting various fragility fractures in women by forearm bone densitometry: a follow-up study. Calcif Tissue Int 1993;52:348-53. [Medline]
- Gardsell P, Johnell O, Nilsson BE. The predictive value of bone loss for fragility fractures in women: a longitudinal study over 15 years. Calcif Tissue Int 1991;49:90-4. [Medline]
- Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD. Pre-existing fractures and bone mass predict vertebral fracture incidence in women. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:919-23.
- Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Davis JW, Vogel JM. A comparison of single and multi-site BMC measurements for assessment of spine fracture probability. J Nucl Med 1989;30:1166-71.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Heirbrun LK, Vogel JM. Selection of the optimal site for fracture risk prediction. Clin Orthop 1987;216:262-8.
- Yano K, Wasnich RD, Vogel JM, Heilbrun LK. Bone mineral measurements among middle-aged and elderly Japanese residents in Hawaii. Am J Epidemiol 1984;119:751-64.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Vogel J, Huang C, Ross PD, Davis JW, Wasnich RD. Broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) predicts risk of vertebral fractures [abstract]. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:S154.
- Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, Browner W, Cauley J, Ensrud K, et al. Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. Lancet 1993;341:72-5. [Medline]
- Kelsey JL, Browner WS, Seeley DG, Nevitt MC, Cummings SR. Risk factors for fractures of the distal forearm and proximal humerus. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:477-89.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Black DM, Cummings SR, Genant HK, Nevitt MC, Palermo L, Browner W. Axial and appendicular bone density predict fractures in older women. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7:633-8. [Medline]
- Seeley DG, Browner WS, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Scott JC, Cummings SR. Which fractures are associated with low appendicular bone mass in elderly women? Ann Intern Med 1991;115:837-42.
- Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, Cauley JA, Genant HK, et al. Appendicular bone density and age predict hip fracture in women. JAMA 1990;263:665-8.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Nevitt MC, Johnell O, Black DM, Ensrud K, Genant HK, Cummings SR. Bone mineral density predicts fractures in very elderly women. Osteoporos Int 1994;4:325-31. [Medline]
- Gluer CC, Cummings SR, Bauer DC, Stone K, Pressman A, Genant HK. Associations between quantitative ultrasound and recent fractures [abstract]. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:S153.
- Melton LJ III, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon M, Wahner HW, Riggs BL. Long-term fracture prediction by bone mineral assessed at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:1227-33. [Medline]
- Cleghorn DB, Polley KJ, Bellon MJ, Chatterton J, Baghurst PA, Nordin BEC. Fracture rates as a function of forearm mineral density in normal postmenopausal women: retrospective and prospective data. Calcif Tissue Int 1991;49:161-3. [Medline]
- Nordin BE, Chatterton BE, Walker CJ, Wishart J. The relation of forearm mineral density to peripheral fractures in postmenopausal women. Med J Aus 1987;146:300-4.
- Lester GE, Anderson JJB, Tylavsky FA, Sutton WR, Stinnett SS, Demasi RA, et al. Update on the use of distal radial bone density measurements in prediction of hip and Colles' fracture risk. J Orthop Res 1990;8:220-6. [Medline]
- Porter RW, Miller CG, Grainger D, Palmer SB. Prediction of hip fracture in elderly women: a prospective study. BMJ 1990;301:638-41.
- Nguyen T, Sambrook P, Kelly P, Jones G, Lord S, Freund J, et al. Prediction of osteoporotic fractures by postural instability and bone density. BMJ 1993;307:1111-5.
- Cheng S, Suominen H, Era P, Heikkinen E. Bone density of the calcaneus and fractures in 75- and 80- year old men and women. Osteoporos Int 1994;4:48-54. [Medline]
- Stegman MR, Recker RR, Davies KM, Ryan RA, Heaney RP. Fracture risk as determined by prospective and retrospective study designs. Osteoporos Int 1992;2:290-7. [Medline]
- Heaney RP, Recker RR, Savill PD. Calcium balance and calcium requirements in middle-aged women. Am J Clin Nutr 1977;30:1603-11.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Chevalley T, Rizzoli R, Nydegger V, Slosman D, Tkatch L, Rapin C-H, et al. Preferential low bone mineral density of the femoral neck in patients with a recent fracture of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 1991;1:147-54. [Medline]
- Perloff JJ, McDermott MT, Perloff KG, Blue PW, Enzenhauer R, Sieck E, et al. Reduced bone-mineral content is a risk factor for hip fractures. Orthop Rev 1991;20:690-8. [Medline]
- Nakamura N, Kyou T, Takaoka K, Ohzono K, Ono K. Bone mineral density in the proximal femur and hip fracture type in the elderly. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7:755-9. [Medline]
- Libanati CR, Schulz EE, Shook JE, Bock M, Baylink DJ. Hip mineral density in females with a recent hip fracture. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1992;74:351-6. [Abstract]
- Kanbara Y, Mizuno K, Hirohata K, Shiraishi H. A comparison of the bone mineral density of the vertebral bodies and the hip in elderly females with hip fractures. Kobe J Med Sci 1992;38:21-36. [Medline]
- Karlsson MK, Johnell O, Nilsson BE, Sernbo I, Obrant KJ. Bone mineral mass in hip fracture patients. Bone 1993;14:161-5. [Medline]
- Greenspan SL, Myers ER, Maitland LA, Resnick NM, Hayes WC. Fall severity and bone mineral density as risk factors for hip fracture in ambulatory elderly. JAMA 1994;271:128-33.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Sugimoto T, Kanbara Y, Shirashi M, Kawakatsu M, Negishi H, Fukase M, et al. Femoral and spinal bone mineral density in Japanese osteoporotics with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 1994;4:144-8. [Medline]
- Pitt F, Lloyd-Jones M, Brazier JE, McGrother CW, Kanis JA, Wallace WA, et al. The costs and benefits of screening and preventing post-menopausal osteoporosis in Trent Region. Sheffield: Trent Osteoporosis Working Group, Trent Regional Health Authority, 1990.
- Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures: bulletin on the effectiveness of health services interventions for decision makers. Vol 1. London: School of Public Health, University of Leeds, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians, Department of Health, 1992.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
StumbleUpon 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Articles
- Drugs for pre-osteoporosis: prevention or disease mongering?
- Pablo Alonso-Coello, Alberto López García-Franco, Gordon Guyatt, and Ray Moynihan
BMJ 2008 336: 126-129.[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]
- Effects of calcium supplementation on bone density in healthy children: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Tania Winzenberg, Kelly Shaw, Jayne Fryer, and Graeme Jones
BMJ 2006 333: 775.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
- Changing perceptions in osteoporosis
- C W McGrother, M M K Donaldson, David J Torgerson, Nelson B Watts, Paul D Miller, and Terence J Wilkin
BMJ 1999 319: 1371.[Extract] [Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Svare, A., Nilsen, T. I. L., Bjoro, T., Forsmo, S., Schei, B., Langhammer, A.
(2009). Hyperthyroid levels of TSH correlate with low bone mineral density: the HUNT 2 study. Eur J Endocrinol
161: 779-786
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Martin, F. C
(2009). Next Steps for Falls and Fracture Reduction. Age Ageing
38: 640-643
[Full text] -
Ho-Pham, L. T, Nguyen, N. D, Nguyen, T. V
(2009). Effect of vegetarian diets on bone mineral density: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
90: 943-950
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Zheng, A., Sakari, R., Cheng, S., Hietikko, A., Moilanen, P., Timonen, J., Fagerlund, K., Karkkainen, M., Alen, M., Cheng, S.
(2009). Effects of a low-frequency sound wave therapy programme on functional capacity, blood circulation and bone metabolism in frail old men and women. Clin Rehabil
23: 897-908
[Abstract] -
Cortet, B.
(2009). Osteoporosis: from early fracture prevention to better bone health with strontium ranelate. Rheumatology (Oxford)
48: iv14-iv19
[Abstract] [Full text] -
LEWIECKI, E. M.
(2009). Managing osteoporosis: Challenges and strategies. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
76: 457-466
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Hadji, P., Ziller, M., Kieback, D. G., Dornoff, W., Tessen, H. W., Menschik, T., Kuck, J., Melchert, F., Hasenburg, A.
(2009). Effects of exemestane and tamoxifen on bone health within the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multicentre (TEAM) trial: results of a German, 12-month, prospective, randomised substudy. Ann Oncol
20: 1203-1209
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Wilson, J., Bonner, T. J., Head, M., Fordham, J., Brealey, S., Rangan, A.
(2009). Variation in bone mineral density by anatomical site in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br
91-B: 772-775
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Wilsgaard, T., Emaus, N., Ahmed, L. A., Grimnes, G., Joakimsen, R. M., Omsland, T. K., Berntsen, G. R.
(2009). Lifestyle Impact on Lifetime Bone Loss in Women and Men: The Tromso Study. Am J Epidemiol
169: 877-886
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Compston, J.
(2009). Is Monitoring Osteoporosis Therapy Worthwhile?. IBMS BoneKEy
6: 99-106
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Travison, T. G., Araujo, A. B., Beck, T. J., Williams, R. E., Clark, R. V., Leder, B. Z., McKinlay, J. B.
(2009). Relation between Serum Testosterone, Serum Estradiol, Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin, and Geometrical Measures of Adult Male Proximal Femur Strength. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
94: 853-860
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Hollaender, R, Hartl, F, Krieg, M-A, Tyndall, A, Geuckel, C, Buitrago-Tellez, C, Manghani, M, Kraenzlin, M, Theiler, R, Hans, D
(2009). Prospective evaluation of risk of vertebral fractures using quantitative ultrasound measurements and bone mineral density in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women: results of the Basel Osteoporosis Study. Ann Rheum Dis
68: 391-396
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Sahni, S., Hannan, M. T, Blumberg, J., Cupples, L A., Kiel, D. P, Tucker, K. L
(2009). Inverse association of carotenoid intakes with 4-y change in bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Framingham Osteoporosis Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
89: 416-424
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Cotte, F.-E., Fautrel, B., De Pouvourville, G.
(2009). A Markov Model Simulation of the Impact of Treatment Persistence in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Med Decis Making
29: 125-139
[Abstract] -
Hershman, D. L., McMahon, D. J., Crew, K. D., Cremers, S., Irani, D., Cucchiara, G., Brafman, L., Shane, E.
(2008). Zoledronic Acid Prevents Bone Loss in Premenopausal Women Undergoing Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. JCO
26: 4739-4745
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Bianchi, M. L.
(2008). Diagnosis and Treatment of Bone Fragility in Childhood. IBMS BoneKEy
5: 323-335
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Chen, J. S., Simpson, J. M., March, L. M., Cameron, I. D., Cumming, R. G., Lord, S. R., Seibel, M. J., Sambrook, P. N.
(2008). Fracture risk assessment in frail older people using clinical risk factors. Age Ageing
37: 536-541
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Meyer, H. E., Sogaard, A. J., Falch, J. A., Jorgensen, L., Emaus, N.
(2008). Weight Change over Three Decades and the Risk of Osteoporosis in Men: The Norwegian Epidemiological Osteoporosis Studies (NOREPOS). Am J Epidemiol
168: 454-460
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Hadji, P., Body, J. -J., Aapro, M. S., Brufsky, A., Coleman, R. E., Guise, T., Lipton, A., Tubiana-Hulin, M.
(2008). Practical guidance for the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss. Ann Oncol
19: 1407-1416
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Wong, S C, Khanna, S, Rashid, R, Ahmed, S F
(2008). Auditing bone densitometry and fractures in children with chronic disease. Arch. Dis. Child.
93: 705-707
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Cadarette, S. M., Katz, J. N., Brookhart, M. A., Sturmer, T., Stedman, M. R., Solomon, D. H.
(2008). Relative Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Drugs for Preventing Nonvertebral Fracture. ANN INTERN MED
148: 637-646
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Olney, R. C., Mazur, J. M., Pike, L. M., Froyen, M. K., Ramirez-Garnica, G., Loveless, E. A., Mandel, D. M., Hahn, G. A., Neal, K. M., Cummings, R. J.
(2008). Healthy Children With Frequent Fractures: How Much Evaluation Is Needed?. Pediatrics
121: 890-897
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Finkelstein, J. S., Brockwell, S. E., Mehta, V., Greendale, G. A., Sowers, M. R., Ettinger, B., Lo, J. C., Johnston, J. M., Cauley, J. A., Danielson, M. E., Neer, R. M.
(2008). Bone Mineral Density Changes during the Menopause Transition in a Multiethnic Cohort of Women. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
93: 861-868
[Abstract] [Full text] -
LaFleur, J., McAdam-Marx, C., Kirkness, C., Brixner, D. I
(2008). Clinical Risk Factors for Fracture in Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women: A Review of the Recent Literature. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
42: 375-386
[Abstract] [Full text] -
MacLaughlin, E. J., Raehl, C. L.
(2008). ASHP Therapeutic Position Statement on the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis in Adults. Am J Health Syst Pharm
65: 343-357
[Full text] -
Forsmo, S., Fjeldbo, S. K., Langhammer, A.
(2008). Childhood Cod Liver Oil Consumption and Bone Mineral Density in a Population-based Cohort of Peri- and Postmenopausal Women: The Nord-Trondelag Health Study. Am J Epidemiol
167: 406-411
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Alonso-Coello, P., Garcia-Franco, A. L., Guyatt, G., Moynihan, R.
(2008). Drugs for pre-osteoporosis: prevention or disease mongering?. BMJ
336: 126-129
[Full text] -
Hodgson, J. M, Devine, A., Burke, V., Dick, I. M, Prince, R. L
(2008). Chocolate consumption and bone density in older women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
87: 175-180
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Tauchmanova, L., Colao, A., Lombardi, G., Rotoli, B., Selleri, C.
(2007). REVIEW: Bone Loss and Its Management in Long-Term Survivors from Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
92: 4536-4545
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Khosla, S.
(2007). High-Trauma Fractures and Bone Mineral Density. JAMA
298: 2418-2419
[Full text] -
Herndon, M. B., Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Welch, H. G.
(2007). Implications Of Expanding Disease Definitions: The Case Of Osteoporosis. Health Aff (Millwood)
26: 1702-1711
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Gnudi, S, Sitta, E, Fiumi, N
(2007). Bone density and geometry in assessing hip fracture risk in post-menopausal women. Br. J. Radiol.
80: 893-897
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Devine, A., Hodgson, J. M, Dick, I. M, Prince, R. L
(2007). Tea drinking is associated with benefits on bone density in older women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
86: 1243-1247
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Cranney, A. MD MSc, Jamal, S. A. MD PhD, Tsang, J. F. BSc, Josse, R. G. MB BS, Leslie, W. D. MD MSc
(2007). Low bone mineral density and fracture burden in postmenopausal women. CMAJ
177: 575-580
[Abstract] [Full text] -
(2007). Assessing Fracture Risk in Individual Patients. JWatch Women's Health
2007: 1-1
[Full text] -
Leslie, W. D., Lix, L. M., Tsang, J. F., Caetano, P. A., for the Manitoba Bone Density Program,
(2007). Single-Site vs Multisite Bone Density Measurement for Fracture Prediction. Arch Intern Med
167: 1641-1647
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Lilleby, V.
(2007). Review: Bone status in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus
16: 580-586
[Abstract] -
Bruyere, O., Roux, C., Detilleux, J., Slosman, D. O., Spector, T. D., Fardellone, P., Brixen, K., Devogelaer, J.-P., Diaz-Curiel, M., Albanese, C., Kaufman, J.-M., Pors-Nielsen, S., Reginster, J.-Y.
(2007). Relationship between Bone Mineral Density Changes and Fracture Risk Reduction in Patients Treated with Strontium Ranelate. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
92: 3076-3081
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Blake, G. M, Fogelman, I.
(2007). The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Postgrad. Med. J.
83: 509-517
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Jorgensen, L., Jenssen, T., Ahmed, L., Bjornerem, A., Joakimsen, R., Jacobsen, B. K.
(2007). Albuminuria and Risk of Nonvertebral Fractures. Arch Intern Med
167: 1379-1385
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Bjornerem, A., Ahmed, L. A., Joakimsen, R. M., Berntsen, G. K R., Fonnebo, V., Jorgensen, L., Oian, P., Seeman, E., Straume, B.
(2007). A prospective study of sex steroids, sex hormone-binding globulin, and non-vertebral fractures in women and men: the Tromso Study. Eur J Endocrinol
157: 119-125
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Roux, C., Briot, K., Horlait, S., Varbanov, A., Watts, N. B, Boonen, S.
(2007). Assessment of non-vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women. Ann Rheum Dis
66: 931-935
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Lata, P. F., Elliott, M. E.
(2007). Patient Assessment in the Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Nutr Clin Pract
22: 261-275
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Khosla, S., Melton, L. J. III
(2007). Osteopenia. NEJM
356: 2293-2300
[Full text] -
van Gool, S. A., Kamp, G. A., Visser-van Balen, H., Mul, D., Waelkens, J. J. J., Jansen, M., Verhoeven-Wind, L., Delemarre-van de Waal, H. A., de Muinck Keizer-Schrama, S. M. P. F., Leusink, G., Roos, J. C., Wit, J. M.
(2007). Final Height Outcome after Three Years of Growth Hormone and Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Treatment in Short Adolescents with Relatively Early Puberty. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
92: 1402-1408
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Brufsky, A., Harker, W. G., Beck, J. T., Carroll, R., Tan-Chiu, E., Seidler, C., Hohneker, J., Lacerna, L., Petrone, S., Perez, E. A.
(2007). Zoledronic Acid Inhibits Adjuvant Letrozole-Induced Bone Loss in Postmenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer. JCO
25: 829-836
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Nguyen, N. D., Eisman, J. A., Center, J. R., Nguyen, T. V.
(2007). Risk Factors for Fracture in Nonosteoporotic Men and Women. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
92: 955-962
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Center, J. R., Bliuc, D., Nguyen, T. V., Eisman, J. A.
(2007). Risk of Subsequent Fracture After Low-Trauma Fracture in Men and Women. JAMA
297: 387-394
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Leslie, W. D., Tsang, J. F., Caetano, P. A., Lix, L. M., for the Manitoba Bone Density Program,
(2007). Effectiveness of Bone Density Measurement for Predicting Osteoporotic Fractures in Clinical Practice. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
92: 77-81
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Lems, W F
(2007). Clinical relevance of vertebral fractures. Ann Rheum Dis
66: 2-4
[Full text] -
Ward, K. A, Ashby, R. L, Roberts, S. A, Adams, J. E, Zulf Mughal, M
(2007). UK reference data for the Hologic QDR Discovery dual-energy x ray absorptiometry scanner in healthy children and young adults aged 6-17 years. Arch. Dis. Child.
92: 53-59
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Lentle, B., Worsley, D.
(2006). Osteoporosis Redux. JNM
47: 1945-1959
[Full text] -
Raman, M., Aghdassi, E., Baun, M., Yeung, M., Fairholm, L., Saqui, O., Allard, J. P.
(2006). Metabolic Bone Disease in Patients Receiving Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Canadian Study and Review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr
30: 492-496
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Nickolas, T. L., McMahon, D. J., Shane, E.
(2006). Relationship between Moderate to Severe Kidney Disease and Hip Fracture in the United States. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.
17: 3223-3232
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Guise, T. A.
(2006). Bone Loss and Fracture Risk Associated with Cancer Therapy. The Oncologist
11: 1121-1131
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Winzenberg, T., Shaw, K., Fryer, J., Jones, G.
(2006). Effects of calcium supplementation on bone density in healthy children: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ
333: 775-
[Abstract] [Full text] -
van Staa, T.P., Geusens, P., Kanis, J.A., Leufkens, H.G.M., Gehlbach, S., Cooper, C.
(2006). A simple clinical score for estimating the long-term risk of fracture in post-menopausal women. QJM
99: 673-682
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Thornton, J, Ashcroft, D M, Mughal, M Z, Elliott, R A, O'Neill, T W, Symmons, D
(2006). Systematic review of effectiveness of bisphosphonates in treatment of low bone mineral density and fragility fractures in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arch. Dis. Child.
91: 753-761
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Kanna, B., Roffe, E.
(2006). Prevention of hip fracture in elderly women with Alzheimer disease.. Arch Intern Med
166: 1144-1145
[Full text] -
Bahamondes, L., Espejo-Arce, X., Hidalgo, M. M., Hidalgo-Regina, C., Teatin-Juliato, C., Petta, C. A.
(2006). A cross-sectional study of the forearm bone density of long-term users of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Hum Reprod
21: 1316-1319
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Mauck, K. F., Clarke, B. L.
(2006). Diagnosis, Screening, Prevention, and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Mayo Clin Proc.
81: 662-672
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Newton, J.L., Jones, D.E.J., Wilton, K., Pairman, J., Parry, S.W., Francis, R.M.
(2006). Calcaneal bone mineral density in older patients who have fallen.. QJM
99: 231-236
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Thorpe, J A, Steel, S A
(2006). The DXL Calscan heel densitometer: evaluation and diagnostic thresholds.. Br. J. Radiol.
79: 336-341
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Petryk, A., Bergemann, T. L., Polga, K. M., Ulrich, K. J., Raatz, S. K., Brown, D. M., Robison, L. L., Baker, K. S.
(2006). Prospective Study of Changes in Bone Mineral Density and Turnover in Children after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
91: 899-905
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Emaus, N., Berntsen, G. K. R., Joakimsen, R., Fonnebo, V.
(2006). Longitudinal Changes in Forearm Bone Mineral Density in Women and Men Aged 45-84 Years: The Tromso Study, a Population-based Study. Am J Epidemiol
163: 441-449
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Holick, M. F.
(2006). High Prevalence of Vitamin D Inadequacy and Implications for Health. Mayo Clin Proc.
81: 353-373
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Pinheiro, M. M., Castro, C. M., Szejnfeld, V. L.
(2006). Low femoral bone mineral density and quantitative ultrasound are risk factors for new osteoporotic fracture and total and cardiovascular mortality: a 5-year population-based study of brazilian elderly women.. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
61: 196-203
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Bahamondes, L., Monteiro-Dantas, C., Espejo-Arce, X., dos Santos Fernandes, A. M., Lui-Filho, J. F., Perrotti, M., Petta, C. A.
(2006). A prospective study of the forearm bone density of users of etonorgestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants. Hum Reprod
21: 466-470
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Summey, B. T., Yosipovitch, G.
(2006). Glucocorticoid-Induced Bone Loss in Dermatologic Patients: An Update. Arch Dermatol
142: 82-90
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Todhunter, C E, Sutherland-Craggs, A, Bartram, S A, Donaldson, P T, Daly, A K, Francis, R M, Mansfield, J C, Thompson, N P
(2005). Influence of IL-6, COL1A1, and VDR gene polymorphisms on bone mineral density in Crohn's disease. Gut
54: 1579-1584
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Karlsson, M. K., Gerdhem, P., Ahlborg, H. G.
(2005). The prevention of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br
87-B: 1320-1327
[Full text] -
Emaus, N., Berntsen, G. K. R., Joakimsen, R. M., Fonnebo, V.
(2005). Longitudinal Changes in Forearm Bone Mineral Density in Women and Men Aged 25-44 Years: The Tromso Study: A Population-based Study. Am J Epidemiol
162: 633-643
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Kaji, H., Yamauchi, M., Chihara, K., Sugimoto, T.
(2005). The threshold of bone mineral density for vertebral fractures in female patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Eur J Endocrinol
153: 373-378
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Paschalis, E. P., Glass, E. V., Donley, D. W., Eriksen, E. F.
(2005). Bone Mineral and Collagen Quality in Iliac Crest Biopsies of Patients Given Teriparatide: New Results from the Fracture Prevention Trial. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
90: 4644-4649
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Fuleihan, G. E.-H., Salamoun, M., Mourad, Y. A., Chehal, A., Salem, Z., Mahfoud, Z., Shamseddine, A.
(2005). Pamidronate in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Bone Loss in Premenopausal Women with Breast Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
90: 3209-3214
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Cauley, J. A., Lui, L.-Y., Ensrud, K. E., Zmuda, J. M., Stone, K. L., Hochberg, M. C., Cummings, S. R.
(2005). Bone Mineral Density and the Risk of Incident Nonspinal Fractures in Black and White Women. JAMA
293: 2102-2108
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Acheson, L. S.
(2005). Bone Density and the Risk of Fractures: Should Treatment Thresholds Vary by Race?. JAMA
293: 2151-2154
[Full text] -
Frisoli, A. Jr.,, Chaves, P. H. M., Pinheiro, M. M., Szejnfeld, V. L.
(2005). The Effect of Nandrolone Decanoate on Bone Mineral Density, Muscle Mass, and Hemoglobin Levels in Elderly Women With Osteoporosis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
60: 648-653
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Epstein, S.
(2005). The Roles of Bone Mineral Density, Bone Turnover, and Other Properties in Reducing Fracture Risk During Antiresorptive Therapy. Mayo Clin Proc.
80: 379-388
[Abstract] -
STEPHEN, A. B., PYE, D., LYONS, A. R., ONI, J. A., DAVIS, T. R. C.
(2005). Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA): Can it Detect Acute Scaphoid Fractures?. J Hand Surg Eur Vol
30: 83-84
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Brennan, B. M. D., Mughal, Z., Roberts, S. A., Ward, K., Shalet, S. M., Eden, T. O. B., Will, A. M., Stevens, R. F., Adams, J. E.
(2005). Bone Mineral Density in Childhood Survivors of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treated without Cranial Irradiation. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
90: 689-694
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Scholes, D., LaCroix, A. Z., Ichikawa, L. E., Barlow, W. E., Ott, S. M.
(2005). Change in Bone Mineral Density Among Adolescent Women Using and Discontinuing Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate Contraception. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
159: 139-144
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Summers, K. M, Brock, T. P.
(2005). Impact of Pharmacist-Led Community Bone Mineral Density Screenings. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
39: 243-248
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Scanlon, P. D., Connett, J. E., Wise, R. A., Tashkin, D. P., Madhok, T., Skeans, M., Carpenter, P. C., Bailey, W. C., Buist, A. S., Eichenhorn, M., Kanner, R. E., Weinmann, G., the Lung Health Study Research Group,
(2004). Loss of Bone Density with Inhaled Triamcinolone in Lung Health Study II. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.
170: 1302-1309
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Meyer, H. E., Berntsen, G. K. R., Sogaard, A. J., Langhammer, A., Schei, B., Fonnebo, V., Forsmo, S., Tell, G. S., the Norwegian Epidemiological Osteoporosis Studies,
(2004). Higher Bone Mineral Density in Rural Compared with Urban Dwellers: The NOREPOS Study. Am J Epidemiol
160: 1039-1046
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Schellinger, D., Lin, C. S., Lim, J., Hatipoglu, H. G., Pezzullo, J. C., Singer, A. J.
(2004). Bone Marrow Fat and Bone Mineral Density on Proton MR Spectroscopy and Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry: Their Ratio as a New Indicator of Bone Weakening. Am. J. Roentgenol.
183: 1761-1765
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Ralston, S. H., Bennett, S. T., Brandi, M. L., Grinberg, D., Karassa, F. B., Langdahl, B., van Meurs, J. B. J., Mosekilde, L., Scollen, S., Albagha, O. M. E., Bustamante, M., Carey, A. H., Dunning, A. M., Enjuanes, A., van Leeuwen, J. P. T. M., Mavilia, C., Masi, L., McGuigan, F. E. A., Nogues, X., Pols, H. A. P., Reid, D. M., Schuit, S. C. E., Sherlock, R. E., Uitterlinden, A. G., for the GENOMOS Study,
(2004). Differential Genetic Effects of ESR1 Gene Polymorphisms on Osteoporosis Outcomes. JAMA
292: 2105-2114
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Tattersfield, A. E., Harrison, T. W., Hubbard, R. B., Mortimer, K.
(2004). Safety of Inhaled Corticosteroids. Proc Am Thorac Soc
1: 171-175
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Cheung, A. M., Feightner, J. W.
(2004). Seeking clarification of osteoporosis guidelines. CMAJ
171: 1022-1023
[Full text] -
HEGEMAN, J. H., OSKAM, J., VAN DER PALEN, J., TEN DUIS, H. J., VIERHOUT, P. A. M.
(2004). The Distal Radial Fracture in Elderly Women and the Bone Mineral Density of the Lumbar Spine and Hip. J Hand Surg Eur Vol
29: 473-476
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Lenchik, L., Rogers, L. F., Delmas, P. D., Genant, H. K.
(2004). Diagnosis of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: Importance of Recognition and Description by Radiologists. Am. J. Roentgenol.
183: 949-958
[Full text] -
Sverrisdottir, A., Fornander, T., Jacobsson, H., von Schoultz, E., Rutqvist, L.E.
(2004). Bone Mineral Density Among Premenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer in a Randomized Trial of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy. JCO
22: 3694-3699
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Jorgensen, L., Joakimsen, O., Rosvold Berntsen, G. K., Heuch, I., Jacobsen, B. K.
(2004). Low Bone Mineral Density Is Related to Echogenic Carotid Artery Plaques: A Population-based Study. Am J Epidemiol
160: 549-556
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Porthouse, J., Birks, Y.F., Torgerson, D.J., Cockayne, S., Puffer, S., Watt, I.
(2004). Risk factors for fracture in a UK population: a prospective cohort study. QJM
97: 569-574
[Abstract] [Full text]
This Article
-
Abstract
- Respond to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
- View citation map
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Find similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Related Content
-
Calcium and bone
-
Musculoskeletal syndromes
-
Osteoporosis
-
Screening (epidemiology)
-
Screening (public health)
- Relevant Articles
- Find this article in its weekly table of contents
Bookmark with
What's new
Latest blogs
Find BMJ on:
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Rapid responses for this article
There are no rapid responses for this article. Print issues
