4.5 Article

Prescreening for Osteoporosis With Quantitative Ultrasound in Postmenopausal White Women

期刊

JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 1553-1559

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jum.14844

关键词

bone mineral density; dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; osteoporosis; postmenopausal women; prescreening; quantitative ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is a readily accessible and radiation-free alternative to dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for assessing bone mineral density (BMD). Results obtained from QUS measurement cannot directly be compared to DXA, since these techniques capture different bone-specific parameters. To identify individuals who are likely to have osteoporosis by DXA, device-specific thresholds have to be defined for QUS. This cross-sectional study evaluated the accuracy of QUS to identify postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, defined as a T score of -2.5 SDs or lower by DXA, and to calculate device-specific cutoff values for the QUS device investigated. Methods We assessed BMD at the lumbar spine, bilateral femoral neck, and total hip sites with DXA and QUS parameters of the right and left calcanei in a cohort of 245 postmenopausal treatment-naive women between 40 and 82 years. Correlation coefficients for BMD and QUS parameters were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated, and areas under the curves (AUCs) were evaluated. Cutoff values for QUS were defined. Results Calcaneal QUS had the ability to identify postmenopausal women with a T score of -2.5 or lower at the right hip (AUC, 0.887) and left femoral neck (AUC, 0.824). Cutoff values for the QUS T scores at the right (-1.455) and left (-1.480) calcanei were defined for screening purposes. Conclusions This study provides insights into the comparative performance of QUS with DXA. Considering the diagnostic accuracy of this modality in comparison to DXA, it can be recommended as a prescreening tool to reduce the number of DXA screenings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据