4.5 Review

Assessment of bone quality in patients with diabetes mellitus

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 29, Issue 8, Pages 1721-1736

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-018-4532-7

Keywords

Bone quality; Diabetes mellitus; Osteoporosis; Quantitative computed tomography; Trabecular bone score

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of the Peoples Republic of China (National Science and Technology Major Projects for Major New Drugs Innovation and Development) [2008ZX09312-016]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81070687, 81170805, 81670714]
  3. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7121012]
  4. Scientific Research Foundation of Beijing Medical Development [20073029]
  5. National Key Program of Clinical Science [WBYZ2011-873]
  6. CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences [2016-I2M-3-003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Substantial evidence exists that diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. Low bone strength as well as bone extrinsic factors are probably contributing to the increased bone fragility in diabetes. Bone density and quality are important determinants of bone strength. Although bone mineral density (BMD) and the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) are very useful clinical tools in assessing bone strength, they may underestimate the fracture risk in diabetes mellitus. Through advances in new technologies such as trabecular bone score (TBS) and peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), we can better assess the bone quality and fracture risk of patients with diabetes mellitus. Invasive assessments such as microindentation and histomorphometry have been great complement to the existing bone analysis techniques. Bone turnover markers have been found to be altered in diabetes mellitus patients and may be associated with fractures. This review will give a brief summary of the current development and clinical uses of these assessments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available