4.5 Article

Which bone mass measures discriminate adolescents who have fractured from those who have not?

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 251-255

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-007-0458-1

关键词

bone mass; children; fracture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study of 415 adolescent children examined the association between four different measures of bone mass and prevalent fracture (N=160 children). DXA measures and calcaneal ultrasound (but not radial ultrasound or metacarpal index) were associated with upper limb fracture, suggesting heel ultrasound is also a discriminator of fractures in children. Introduction The aim of the study was to describe the association between different measures of bone mass and prevalent fracture in adolescents. Methods A total of 415 adolescents (150 girls and 265 boys), mean age 16.3 years were examined. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measures were performed at hip, spine, radius and total body. Calcaneal bone ultrasound attenuation (BUA), speed of sound (SOS), and stiffness were assessed by a Sahara densitometer. Radial ultrasound SOS was assessed by a Sunlight 8000P machine. Metacarpal index was calculated from a left hand X-ray. Prevalent fractures were assessed by questionnaire. Results A total of 160 adolescents (39%) reported at least one previous fracture (106 upper limb, 53 lower limb, one other for first fracture). Significantly lower DXA measures, heel BUA, and heel stiffness was observed in those with a history of upper limb fracture (all P < 0.05). Despite significant correlations between all the bone mass measures, radial ultrasound and metacarpal index did not discriminate those with fracture from those without. Similar associations were present for number of fractures. No bone measure was able to discriminate lower limb fracture. Conclusions Both calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and DXA are able to discriminate adolescents with a history of upper limb fracture from those without.

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