CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 183Bone health and osteoporosis researchBone Metabolism and DiseasesHIV-related health complications and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bone Geometry, Volumetric Density, Microarchitecture, and Estimated Bone Strength Assessed by HR-pQCT in Adult Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Open access
Shanbhogue, Vikram V, Hansen, Stinus, Frost, Morten, Jørgensen, Niklas Rye, Hermann, Anne Pernille, Henriksen, Jan Erik, Brixen, Kim·2015·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
DOI 10.1002/jbmr.2573
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The primary goal of this cross-sectional in vivo study was to assess peripheral bone microarchitecture, bone strength, and bone remodeling in adult type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients with and without diabetic microvascular disease (MVD+ and MVD–, respectively) and to compare them with age-, gender-, and height-matched healthy control subjects (CoMVD+ and CoMVD–, respectively). The secondary goal was to assess differences in MVD– and MVD+ patients. Fifty-five patients with T1DM (MVD+ group: n = 29) were recruited from the Funen Diabetes Database. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) of the ultradistal radius and tibia, and biochemical markers of bone turnover were performed in all participants. There were no significant differences in HR-pQCT parameters between MVD– and CoMVD– subjects. In contrast, MVD+ patients had larger total and trabecular bone areas (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively), lower total, trabecular, and cortical volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) (p < 0.01, p < 0.04, and p < 0.02, respectively), and thinner cortex (p = 0.03) at the radius, and lower total and trabecular vBMD (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively) at the tibia in comparison to CoMVD+. MVD+ patients also exhibited lower total and trabecular vBMD (radius p = 0.01, tibia p < 0.01), trabecular thickness (radius p = 0.01), estimated bone strength, and greater trabecular separation (radius p = 0.01, tibia p < 0.01) and network inhomogeneity (radius p = 0.01, tibia p < 0.01) in comparison to MVD– patients. These differences remained significant after adjustment for age, body mass index, gender, disease duration, and glycemic control (average glycated hemoglobin over the previous 3 years). Although biochemical markers of bone turnover were significantly lower in MVD+ and MVD– groups in comparison to controls, they were similar between the MVD+ and MVD– groups. The results of our study suggest that the presence of MVD was associated with deficits in cortical and trabecular bone vBMD and microarchitecture that could partly explain the excess skeletal fragility observed in these patients. © 2015 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jbmr.2573

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 45 references

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–183 of 183

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shanbhogue, V. V., Hansen, S., Frost, M., Jørgensen, N. R., Hermann, A. P., Henriksen, J. E., & Brixen, K.
Affiliations
University of Southern Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Shanbhogue, Vikram V
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2015-06-10
Volume
30
Issue
12
Pages
2188-2199
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
DOI
10.1002/jbmr.2573
OpenAlex
W2109729276
Cited by
183
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2
FWCI
19.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
This work was supported by grants from The Research Foundation, Odense University Hospital. MN was supported by a grant from the Danish Council for Independent Research.
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bone Metabolism and Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV-related health complications and treatments
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, diabetic microangiopathy, bone microarchitecture, bone mineral density, bone strength, bone remodeling, bone turnover markers, trabecular bone, cortical bone, bone geometry, ultradistal radius, tibia, trabecular separation, trabecular thickness, network heterogeneity, glycemic control
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anthropometry, Bone and Bones, Child, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Humans, Male, Microcirculation, Middle Aged, Radius, Tibia, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Vascular Diseases, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Body Mass Index, Case-Control Studies, Bone Remodeling, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review