SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi / 2004 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of quantitative ultrasonography with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in assessment of bone mineral density

Kemik mineral yoğunluğunun değerlendirilmesinde kantitatif ultrasonografi ve dual enerji X-ışını absorbsiyometrinin karşılaştırılması

Lale ALTAN
Ümit BİNGÖL
Merih YURTKURAN
Firdin Ferda KUMAŞ
İlker ERCAN
Pages
27–32
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

Calcaneal QUS and DEXA measurements performed in a standard fashion in a total of 485 patients showed, by Pearson correlation coefficient calculations, a positive but low correlation (r=0.13 to 0.37, p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) has recently been proposed by several authors as an alternative method in the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis with its ability to assess both bone mass and microarchitecture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study was to investigate correlation of QUS and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Calcaneal QUS and DEXA measurements performed in a standard fashion in a total of 485 patients showed, by Pearson correlation coefficient calculations, a positive but low correlation (r=0.13 to 0.37, p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) has recently been proposed by several authors as an alternative method in the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis with its ability to assess both bone mass and microarchitecture. The purpose of this study was to investigate correlation of QUS and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements. Calcaneal QUS and DEXA measurements performed in a standard fashion in a total of 485 patients showed, by Pearson correlation coefficient calculations, a positive but low correlation (r=0.13 to 0.37, p

Özet

Kantitatif ultrasonografi (KUS) kemiğin hem kitlesini hem de mikromimarisini değerlendirebilmesi nedeniyle son yıllarda birçok araştırmacı tarafından osteoporozun tanı ve takibinde alternatif bir yöntem olarak önerilmektedir. Bu çalışmada KUS ve dual X-Işını absorbsiyometri (DEXA) ölçüm değerleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek amacıyla 485 hastanın KUS ve DEXA ile kemik mineral yoğunlukları ölçüldü. Ölçüm değerleri arasındaki ilişki Pearson korelasyon katsayısı ile incelendiğinde DEXA ve “broadband ultrasound attenuation-yaygın ultrason zayıflaması” (BUA) amplitüdleri ve T-skorları arasında pozitif fakat düşük düzeyde bir ilişki (r=0.13 - 0.37, p

🔖

Cite This Article

ALTAN, L., BİNGÖL, Ü., YURTKURAN, M., KUMAŞ, F. F., ERCAN, İ. (2022). Comparison of quantitative ultrasonography with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in assessment of bone mineral density. Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 2, 27–32. https://ajindex.com/articles/629302

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Cummings ST, Kelsey JL, Nevitt MC, O’Dowd KJ. Epidemiyology of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. Epidemiol Rev 1985;7:178-208
  2. Johnston CC, Slemenda CW, Melton LJ. Bone density measurement and the management of osteoporosis. In Favus MJ (ed) Osteoporosis. Fundomentals of clinical practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven,1997:46-55 3. Sim LH, van Doorn T. Radiographic measurement of bone mineral: reviewing dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 1995;18:65-80
  3. Ott SM. When bone mass fails to predict bone failure. Calcif Tissue Int 1993;53:7-13
  4. Hans D, Wu C, Njeh CF, Zhao S, et al. Ultrasound velocity of trabecular cubes reflects mainly bone density and elasticity. Calcif Tissue Int 1999;64:18-23
  5. Prins SH, Jorgensen HL, Jorgensen LV, Hassager C. The role of quantitative ultrasound in the assessment of bone: a review. Clin Physiol 1998;18:3-17
  6. Gregg EW, Kriska AM, Salomone LM, Roberts MM 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
  7. Njeh CF, Boivin CM, Langton CM. The role of ultrasound in the assessment of osteoporosis: a review. Osteoporosis Int 1997; 7:7-22
  8. Frost ML, Blake GM, Fogelman I. Does quantitative ultrasound imaging enhance precision and discrimination? Osteoporosis Int 2000;11:425-33
  9. Pluskiewicz W and Drozdzowska B. Ultrasound measurements of proximal phalanges in Polish early postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 1998;8:578-83
  10. Sahota O, San P, Cawte SA, Pearson D et al. A comparison of the longitudinal changes in quantitative ultrasound with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: the four-year effects of hormone replacement therapy. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:52-8
  11. Çetin A, Ertürk H, Çeliker R, Sivri A, et al. The role of quantitative ultrasound in predicting osteoporosis defined by dual X-ray absorbtiometry. Rheumatol Int 2001;20:55-9
  12. Rossman P, Zagzebski J, Mesina C, Sorenson et al. Comparison of speed of sound and ultrasound attenuation in the os calcis to bone density of the radius, femur and lumbar spine. Clin Physiol Meas 1989;10:353-60
  13. Chappard C, Laugier P, Fournier B,Roux C et al. Assessment of the relationship between broanband ultrasound attenuation and bone mineral density at the calcaneus using BUA imaging and DEXA. Osteoporosis Int 1997;7:316-22
  14. Kang C and Speller R. Comparison of ultrasound and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry measurements in t