4.5 Article

Bone mineral density of the spine and femur in healthy Chinese men

Journal

ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages 419-427

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-7262.2006.00170.x

Keywords

bone mineral density; men; Chinese; osteoporosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To establish bone mineral density (BMD) reference database in healthy Chinese men of Han ethnicity, and to estimate the prevalence of osteoporosis in the population. Methods: The BMD in the lumbar spine 1-4 (L1-4) and proximal femur was measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in a total of 1 385 healthy Chinese men of Han ethnicity aged 20-89 years old in Shanghai. Results: The highly significant negative correlation between age and BMD at any sites of proximal femur was found in the studied population, wheras no correlation between age and BMD at lumbar spine was observed. The peak BMD of the lumbar spine and any sites of hip in Chinese men was defined as the mean BMD for the subjects aged 20-39 years. According to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, the BMD cut-off values for osteoporosis of the L1-4, total hip, femoral neck, trochanter and intertrochanter in Chinese men are 0.719, 0.638, 0.575, 0.437 and 0.725 g/cm(2), respectively. Using the current Chinese reference data, the prevalence of osteoporosis at the L1-4, total hip, femoral neck, trochanter and intertrochanter is 5.4%, 3.8%, 6.3%, 1.8% and 2.8% in 1 084 men aged 50 years or older, respectively. However, using a database for US non-Hispanic white men (NHANES III), the prevalence of osteoporosis or osteopenia at any sites of the hip was significantly higher than that while using the current Chinese reference data. Conclusion: The BMD reference database was established in healthy Chinese men of Han ethnicity, and will facilitate more accurate diagnosis of osteoporosis in Chinese men.

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