Cited by 170Bone health and osteoporosis researchMedical Imaging and AnalysisScoliosis diagnosis and treatment

Spinal bone mineral assessment in postmenopausal women: A comparison between dual X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative computed tomography

Yu, W., Glüer, C., Grampp, S., Jergas, M., Fuerst, T., Wu, C. Y., Lu, Y., Fan, B. +1 more·1995·Osteoporosis International

Abstract

We compared quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with respect to their ability to discriminate subjects with and without prevalent vertebral fractures. In 240 post-menopausal women (mean age 63.7 +/- 6.9 years) lateral spine radiographs (T4-L4) were reviewed for the presence of vertebral fracture. Using a semiquantitative technique to grade the severity of vertebral deformities, we classified fractures as mild, moderate or severe (grade 1 to 3, respectively). Postero-anterior DXA (PA-DXA) and lateral DXA (L-DXA) measurements (L2-4) as well as QCT measurements of the lumbar spine (T12-L3 or L1-14) were obtained in all women. Seventy-two women were diagnosed with at least one fracture, and of these 40 were graded as mild. Comparing normal women with fractured women, we found the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves to be greatest for QCT (0.81), followed by L-DXA (0.72) and PA-DXA (0.65). The differences among all three techniques were significant. Comparing the normal women with women having only mild fractures, the areas under the ROC curves were 0.79, 0.73 and 0.63 for QCT, L-DXA and PA-DXA, respectively. Significant differences existed between QCT and PA-DXA as well as between L-DXA and PA-DXA. Logistic regression analysis also revealed the highest age-adjusted odds ratios for QCT (3.67; 2.25-5.97) while L-DXA and PA-DXA showed substantially lower odds ratios (2.00; 1.39-2.87, and 1.54; 1.11-2.15, respectively)…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf01626604

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yu, W., Glüer, C., Grampp, S., Jergas, M., Fuerst, T., Wu, C. Y., Lu, Y., Fan, B., & Genant, H. K.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Venue
Osteoporosis International
Published
1995-11
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
433-439
ISSN
  • 0937-941X (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-2965
OpenAlex
W2330850709
Cited by
170
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
11.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Osteoporosis International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
vertebral fractures, postmenopausal women, quantitative computed tomography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, spinal bone mineral density, trabecular bone, osteoporosis, fracture detection, diagnostic sensitivity, osteopenia
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Lumbar Vertebrae, Middle Aged, Regression Analysis, Retrospective Studies, ROC Curve, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Spinal Fractures, Postmenopause

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