4.3 Article

Screening for osteoporosis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease by using urinary N-telopeptides

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00042737-200206000-00004

关键词

bone mineral density; inflammatory bowel disease; osteoporosis; urinary N-telopeptides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease are at increased risk of osteoporosis. Design and methods We carried out a prospective study of bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone metabolism like osteocalcin and urinary N-telopeptides in 72 patients with inflammatory bowel disease and evaluated if one of these markers detects osteoporosis. In addition, bone mineral density and N-telopeptides were analysed retrospectively in a second series of 93 patients with inflammatory bowel disease in order to assess predictive values found in the first patient group in an independent sample. Results Multiple linear regression showed that N-telopeptides (P < 0.0001) and total white blood cell count (P = 0.006) correlated negatively with the bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and only N-telopeptides (P = 0.005) correlated negatively with the bone mineral density of the femoral neck. Using receiver operator characteristic curves N-telopeptide concentrations of > 40 (30) nmol N-telopepticles/mmol creatinine were chosen as best cut-off values to exclude osteoporosis at the lumbar spine (femoral neck). Using these cut-off values a negative predictive value of 100% (100%) and a positive predictive value of 37.5% (27.9%) were found in the first group, and a negative predictive value of 95.2% (96%) and a positive predictive value of 15.6% (23.3%) in the second, independent group of patients. Conclusion Our data suggest that N-telopeptide levels could be used as a tool for the screening of osteoporosis and for selecting those inflammatory bowel disease patients where bone mineral density measurement is indicated. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:599-605 (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

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

4.3
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