Journals / Osteoporoz Dünyasından / 2006 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 3

The value of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and phalangeal radiographic absorbsiometry in diagnosis of osteoporosis: A comparative study

Kalkaneal kantitatif ultrason ve falangeal radyografik absorpsiometrinin osteoporoz tanısındaki değeri: Karşılaştırmalı çalışma

Pages
43–46
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Due to highly concordant RA and lumbar vertebral DEXA results, RA appears to be a useful technique for assessing osteoporosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: The current method for screening osteoporosis involves dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: We enrolled a total of 69 community-dwelling people aged between 30-81 years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Due to highly concordant RA and lumbar vertebral DEXA results, RA appears to be a useful technique for assessing osteoporosis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aims: The current method for screening osteoporosis involves dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). The aim of this study to determine specifity and sensitivity of the calcaneal quantative ultrasound (QUS) and radiographic absorbsiometri (RA). Materials and Methods: We enrolled a total of 69 community-dwelling people aged between 30-81 years. Of all the patient's phalangeal bone mineral density (BMD) was measured using RA; calcaneal BMD was measured by using QUS; lumbar spine and hip regions BMD was measured using by DEXA. The screening results conducted by QUS and RA were compared with the DEXA results. Results: While QUS measurements revealed osteopenia in 21 cases (30.4%) and osteoporosis in 31 cases (44.9%); RA measurements revealed osteopenia in 21 cases (30.4%) and osteoporosis in 33 cases (47.8%). Whereas according to lumbar vertebra DEXA results: 21 cases revealed osteopenia, and 30 cases revealed osteoporosis; according to hip DEXA results: 26 cases revealed osteopenia, and 19 cases revealed osteoporosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for identifying cases with osteoporosis by QUS were 66.7%, 78.8%, 77.4%, 68.4%, respectively, and by RA were 75%, 81.8%, 81.8%, 75%, respectively. Conclusion: QUS and RA seem to be valid and practical method. Due to highly concordant RA and lumbar vertebral DEXA results, RA appears to be a useful technique for assessing osteoporosis.

Özet

Amaç: Osteoporoz tanısında günümüzde en geçerli teknik çift-enerji x-ışın absorpsiyometridir (DEXA). Bu çalışmanın amacı kalkaneal kantitatif ultrason (QUS) ve falangeal radyografik absorpsiyometrinin (RA), duyarlılık ve özgüllüğünü ortaya koymaktı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya yaş aralığı 30-81 olan, 69 kadın olgu alındı. Tüm olguların el falangeal kemik mineral yoğunluğu (KMY), RA; kalkaneal KMY, QUS; lomber omurga ve kalça KMY ölçümleri DEXA ile yapıldı. QUS ve RA ile yapılan tarama sonuçları DEXA sonuçları ile istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: QUS ile ölçüm yapılan 21 olguda (%30,4) osteopeni, 31 olguda (%44,9) osteoporoz, RA ile ölçüm yapılan 21 olguda (%30,4) osteopeni, 33 olguda (%47,8) osteoporoz vardı. Lomber vertebra DEXA sonuçlarına göre; 21 olguda (%30,4) osteopeni, 30 olguda (%43,5) osteoporoz, kalça DEXA sonuçlarına göre; 26 olguda (%37,7) osteopeni, 19 olguda (%27,5) osteoporoz vardı. QUS için duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif ve negatif kestirim değeri osteoporoz tespit edilen olgularda sırasıyla %66,7, %78,8, %77,4, %68.4 idi. RA için ise sırasıyla %75, %81,8, %81,8, %75 olarak bulundu. Sonuçlar: QUS ve RA'nın güvenilir ve pratik bir yöntem olduğu görülmektedir. Lomber vertebra DEXA sonuçlarının RA sonuçları ile yüksek derecede uyumlu çıkması nedeniyle osteoporozlu olguların belirlenmesinde RA faydalı bir teknikdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKTAŞ, İ., AKGÜN, K., SARIDOĞAN, M. E. (2006). The value of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and phalangeal radiographic absorbsiometry in diagnosis of osteoporosis: A comparative study. Osteoporoz Dünyasından, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 3, 43–46. https://ajindex.com/articles/286811

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray TM, et al. Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Evaluation of decision rules for referring women for bone densitometry by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. JAMA 2001:286:57-63
  2. Boonen S, Nijs J, Peeters H, et al. Identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis by calcaneal ultrasound, metacarpal digital X-ray radiogrammetry and phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry: a comparative study. Osteoporos Int 2005:16:93-100
  3. Lippuner K, Fuchs G, Hawker GA, et al. How well do radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound predict osteoporosis at spine or hip? A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Densitom 2000:3:241-9
  4. Hans D, Dargent-Molina P, Schott AM, et al. Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet 1996:24: 348:511-4
  5. Yang SO, Hagiwara S, Engelke K, et al. Radiographic absorptiometry for bone mineral measurement of the phalanges: precision and accuracy study. Radiology 1994:192:857-9
  6. Takada M, Engelke K, Hagivara S, et al. Accuracy and precision study in vitro for peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Osteoporos Int 1996:6:207-12
  7. Elliot JR, Fenton AJ, Young T, et al. The precision of digitalX-ray radiogrammetry compared with DXA in subjects with normal bone density or osteoporosis. J Clin Densitom 2005:8:187-90
  8. Gregg EW, Kriska AM, Salamone LM, et al. The epidemiology of quantitative ultrasound: a rewiev of the relationships with bone mass, osteoporosis and fracture risk. Osteoporosis Int 1997:7:89-99
  9. Njeh CF, Boivin CM, Gough A, et al. The role of ultrasound in the assessment of osteoporosis: a review. Osteoporosis Int 1997:7:7-22
  10. Mussolino ME, Looker AC, Madans JH, et al. Phalangeal bone density and hip fracture risk. Arch Intern Med 1997:157:433-8
  11. Swezey RL, Draper D, Swezey AM. Bone densitometry: Comparison of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry to radiographic absorptiometry. J Rheumatol 1996:23: 1734-8
  12. Takada M, Engelke K, Hagiwara S, et al. Assessment of osteoporosis: comparison of radiographic absorptiometry of the phalanges and dual X-ray absorptiometry of the radius and lumbar spine. Radiology 1997:202:759-63 13. Grampp S, Genant HK, Mathur A, et al. Comparisons of non-invasive bone mineral measurements in assessing agerelated loss, fracture discrimination and diagnostic classification. J Bone Min Res 1997:12: 697-711
  13. Miller PD, Bonnick SL, Johnston CC, et al. The challenges o