4.6 Article

Socioeconomic status and bone mineral density in a population-based sample of men

期刊

BONE
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 993-999

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.12.029

关键词

Socioeconomic status; Social disadvantage; BMD; Spine; Femoral neck

资金

  1. NHMRC [519404, 436665, 545876]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Overall, socioeconomic status (SES) is inversely associated with poorer health outcomes. However, current literature provides conflicting data of the relationship between SES and bone mineral density (BMD) in men. In an age-stratified population-based randomly selected cross-sectional study of men (n = 1467) we assessed the association between SES and lifestyle exposures in relation to BMD. SES was determined by matching the residential address for each subject with Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 census data for the study region. BMD was measured at the spine and femoral neck by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Lifestyle variables were collected by self-report. Regression models were age-stratified into younger and older groups and adjusted for age, weight, dietary calcium, physical activity, and medications known to affect bone. Subjects with spinal abnormalities were excluded from analyses of BMD at the spine. In younger men, BMD was highest at the spine in the mid quintiles of SES, where differences were observed compared to quintile 1 (1-7%, p<0.05). In older men, the pattern of BMD across SES quintiles was reversed, and subjects from mid quintiles had the lowest BMD, with differences observed compared to quintile 5 (1-7%, p<0.05). Differences in BMD at the spine across SES quintiles represent a potential 1.5-fold increase in fracture risk for those with the lowest BMD. There were no differences in BMD at the femoral neck. Further research is warranted which examines the mechanisms that may underpin differences in BMD across SES quintiles and to address the current paucity of data in this field of enquiry. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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