Influence of degenerative joint disease on spinal bone mineral measurements in postmenopausal women
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This finding highlights the limitations of DXA, particularly in terms of BMD overestimation related to degenerative changes.
“this finding highlights the limitations of DXA, particularly in terms of BMD overestimation related to degenerative changes (1, 24).”
From Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications (2013) · cites this paper as [24]
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)
- ORCID
- Genant, H. K.
- 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
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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