Cited by 154Bone health and osteoporosis researchScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

Influence of degenerative joint disease on spinal bone mineral measurements in postmenopausal women

Yu, W., Gl�er, C. -C., Fuerst, T., Grampp, S., Li, J., Lu, Y., Genant, H. K.·1995·Calcified Tissue International

Abstract

We assessed the impact of various forms of spinal degenerative joint disease (DJD) on bone mineral density (BMD) measured by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a group of postmenopausal women. Lateral (T4-L4) and AP (L1-L4) spinal radiographs were reviewed for fracture and DJD in 209 women (mean age 62.6 +/- 6.7). The severity of DJD findings was graded as 0, 1, or 2 on the lumbar films, except for vertebral osteophytes which were graded from 0 to 3. Vertebral fractures were defined semiquantitatively as approximately 20% reduction in anterior, middle, or posterior vertebral height. BMD was measured in all subjects by QCT and DXA, including posteroanterior DXA (PA-DXA), lateral DXA (L-DXA) and midlateral DXA (mL-DXA). When BMD was measured by QCT and mL-DXA in the 168 women without fractures, no significant differences were found between women with and those without DJD. However, BMD by PA-DXA was significantly higher in women with DJD changes, particularly when osteophytes were present at the vertebral bodies or facet joints. BMD by L-DXA was less affected by DJD. For this measurement a significant increase in BMD was only noted in subjects with vertebral osteophytes. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed that BMD by QCT and mL-DXA was not affected by DJD. In contrast, for all women, BMD by PA- and L-DXA was affected more by DJD than by fracture status. Chi-square testing demonstrated no significant relationships between…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00310253

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 31 · Cited by 154

Authors
Yu, W., Gl�er, C. C., Fuerst, T., Grampp, S., Li, J., Lu, Y., & Genant, H. K.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Venue
Calcified Tissue International
Published
1995-09
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
169-174
ISSN
  • 0171-967X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0827
OpenAlex
W2079561092
Cited by
154
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Calcified Tissue International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Keywords
osteoarthritis, bone mineral density, postmenopausal women, vertebral osteophytes, vertebral fractures, quantitative computed tomography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, lumbar spine, bone loss, osteoporosis
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Osteoarthritis, Retrospective Studies, Spine, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal

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