4.6 Article

Hyperthyroid levels of TSH correlate with low bone mineral density: the HUNT 2 study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 161, 期 5, 页码 779-786

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-09-0139

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wallac Oy. Turku. Finland
  2. Health Nord-Trondelag [2, 2005]
  3. Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation [0238, 2008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To study the relationship between TSH and Forearm bone mineral density (BMD) in a general female population. Design: Cross-sectional. population-based Study. Methods: In it substudy of the Nord-Trondelag Health Study 1995-1997 (HUNT 2), 5778 women without and 944 with self-reported thyroid disease aged >= 40 years had their serum TSH and distal and ultra-distal forearm BMD measured. In range-based categories of TSH. excluding women with previous thyroid disease, a general linear model was used to calculate adjusted mean BMD. and a logistic regression model to compute adjusted odds ratio (OR) for osteopenia and osteoporosis. Corresponding models were used to compare BMD in women with self-reported hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism to euthyroid women. Results: In women without self-reported thyroid disease. those with TSH <0.5 mU/l had 10.7 mg/cm(2) (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-21.1.) lower distal and 9.1 mg/cm(2) (95% CI -0.7-18.9) lower ultra-distal BMD than women in the reference category (TSH 0.50-1.49 mU/l). No differences were found between the categories with TSH >= 0.50 mU/l. Compared to self-reported euthyroid women, self-reported hyperthyroid women had increased odds for osteoporosis both distally (M 1.35. 95%, CI 1.00-1.82) and ultra-distally (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.10-1.99). Conclusion: Women with the lowest TSH (<0.5 mU/l) had lower forearm BMD than the reference category. No differences were observed between the TSH categories >= 0.50 mU/l. The prevalence of osteoporosis was higher in women who reported hyperthyroidism than in women without self-reported thyroid disease.

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