4.5 Article

The correlation of two bone turnover markers with bone mineral density: a population-based cross-sectional study

期刊

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06613-5

关键词

Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase; Bone turnover markers; Urinary N-telopeptide; Bone mineral density; NHANES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored the correlation between bone turnover markers (BTMs) and lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) in middle-aged populations. Data from NHANES were analyzed in a cross-sectional analysis. Serum bone alkaline phosphatase (sBAP) and urinary N-telopeptide (uNTx) levels were used as representatives of bone turnover. Multivariable linear regression models were used to detect the correlation of sBAP and uNTx with lumbar BMD.
Objective Exploring the correlation between bone turnover marks (BTMs) with lumbar BMD in middle-aged populations. Methods The cross-sectional analysis fetched data came from NHANES. The level of serum bone alkaline phosphatase (sBAP) and urinary N-telopeptide (uNTx) were regarded as representative of bone turnover. Lumbar BMD was the outcome of the study. Multivariable linear regression models were utilized to detect the correlation of sBAP and uNTx with Lumbar BMD. Results The level of sBAP and uNTx was negatively correlated with lumbar BMD in every multivariable linear regression. For sBAP, this inverse correlation was stable in both men and women (P < 0.01). uNTx indicated a negative association after all relevant covariables were adjusted (P < 0.01). The men group remained the negative correlation in gender subgroup analysis (P < 0.01). Conclusion This study indicated that the increased level of sBAP and uNTx associated with lumbar BMD decreased among middle-aged adults. This correlation could prompt researchers to explore further the relationship between bone turnover rate and BMD, which may provide information for the early detection of BMD loss and provide a new strategy for clinical practice.

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