4.5 Article

Population-based reference values for bone mineral density in young men

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages 1507-1514

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-007-0399-8

Keywords

bone mineral density; male reference values

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Population-based reference values for peak bone mass density in Danish men. BMD of total hip (1.078 +/- 0,14 g/cm(2)) differed significantly from values from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III and of total lumbar spine ((1.073 +/- 0.125 g/cm(2)) differed significantly from Hologic values. Introduction Geographic, ethnic, and socio-economic factors are known to affect bone mineral density (BMD) and peak bone mass significantly. Reference values for male peak bone mass are scarce, and the diagnosis of male osteoporosis often relies on values provided by producers of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) equipment. Methods The aim of the present study was 1) to establish population-based reference values for BMD in young men and 2) to study subgroups based on variables with suspected impact on bone metabolism. We included 783 young Caucasian men aged 20 to 30 years in the Odense Androgen Study (OAS). Results Peak BMD was attained within the third decade. Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) was associated with higher BMD. Abuse of anabolic steroids as well as chronic illness was associated with lower BMD. Our population-based reference values for BMD of the total hip (1.078 +/- 0.14 g/cm(2)) differed significantly from published values from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III for non-Hispanic white men, while BMD of total lumbar spine (1.073 +/- 0.125 g/cm(2)) differed significantly from Hologic reference values. Conclusions Locally derived reference values are important to avoid false positive or false negative findings during work-up in patients evaluated for osteoporosis.

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