Cited by 66Spinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesMedical Imaging and AnalysisBone health and osteoporosis research

Detection of osteoporotic vertebral fractures using multidetector CT

Bauer, J. S., Müller, D., Ambekar, A., Dobritz, M., Matsuura, M., Eckstein, F., Rummeny, E. J., Link, T. M.·2006·Osteoporosis International

Abstract

Introduction Goals were to compare the performance of lateral radiographs and sagittal reformations (SR) of axial computed tomography (CT) datasets in identification of osteoporotic vertebral fractures and to assess for optimal slice thickness in axial CT datasets needed for reliable classification of these fractures. Methods Sixty-five vertebrae were harvested from 21 human cadaver spines and examined with a 64-row multidetector CT scanner. Axial images were acquired with a slice thickness of 0.6, 1, 2, 3 and 5 mm and SR were obtained using these datasets. In addition, specimens were radiographed in antero-posterior and lateral orientation. Vertebrae visualized in the different image datasets were separately graded by four radiologists according to the spinal fracture index (SFI) classification. Fracture status determined in a consensus reading of interactive reformations of the 0.6-mm CT dataset in all three dimensions served as a standard of reference in combination with pathological examinations. Results The average agreement for the 0.6-mm SR obtained between each radiologist and standard of reference for the grading of the fractures was very good (kappa=0.81). It was good for the 1-, 2- and 3-mm SR (kappa=0.70, 0.69 and 0.64), but only moderate for the radiographs (kappa=0.52), and fair for the 5-mm SR (kappa=0.33). When focusing only on detection of fractures, independent of the grading, all kappa values improved by about 0.15, resulting in excellent values for the 0.6…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00198-005-0023-8

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?

  • Differences in the study population, focus on prevalent instead of incident fractures, and better sensitivity to detect fractures by using ≤1-mm instead of 2.5-mm axial slices could lead to relatively higher ORs compared to Allaire et al.

    “These differences in the study population—paired with the focus on prevalent instead of incident fractures and better sensitivity to detect fractures by using ≤ 1-mm instead of 2.5-mm axial slices [26]—could lead to the relatively higher ORs compared to Allaire et al (OR = 2.7 vs. 1.6 for CT-based aBMD, OR = 4.8 vs. 2.8 for integral vBMD, and OR = 6.8 vs. 2.1 for trabecular vBMD) [27]; though, CT–”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, J. S., Müller, D., Ambekar, A., Dobritz, M., Matsuura, M., Eckstein, F., Rummeny, E. J., & Link, T. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Paracelsus Medical University (AT)
Corresponding author
Bauer, J. S.
Venue
Osteoporosis International
Published
2005-12-31
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
608-615
ISSN
  • 0937-941X (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-2965
OpenAlex
W2022066625
Cited by
66
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Osteoporosis International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
osteoporotic vertebral fractures, multidetector computed tomography, slice thickness, lateral radiographs, fracture detection, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Aged, 80 and over, Cadaver, Female, Humans, Male, Osteoporosis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Spinal Fractures

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