CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Bone health and osteoporosis researchSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesBody Composition Measurement Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The fracture predictive ability of lumbar spine BMD and TBS as calculated based on different combinations of the lumbar spine vertebrae

Open access
Shevroja, Enisa, Mo Costabella, François, Gonzalez Rodriguez, Elena, Lamy, Olivier, Hans, Didier·2022·Archives of Osteoporosis
DOI 10.1007/s11657-022-01123-8PMC PMC9184435
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Summary: Lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS) are both calculated on L1-L4 vertebrae. This study investigated the ability to predict osteoporotic fractures of BMD and TBS as calculated based on all possible adjacent L1-L4 vertebrae combinations. Present findings indicate that L1-L3 is an optimal combination to calculate LS-BMD or TBS. Introduction: Lumbar spine (LS) BMD and TBS are both assessed in the LS DXA scans in the same region of interest, L1-L4. We aimed to investigate the ability to predict osteoporotic fractures of all the possible adjacent LS vertebrae combinations used to calculate BMD and TBS and to evaluate if any of these combinations performs better at osteoporotic fracture prediction than the traditional L1-L4 combination. Methods: This study was embedded in OsteoLaus-women cohort in Switzerland. LS-DXA scans were performed using Discovery A System (Hologic). The incident vertebral fractures (VFs) and major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) were assessed from VF assessments using Genant’s method or questionnaires (non-VF MOF). We ran logistic models using TBS and BMD to predict MOF, VF, and non-VF MOF, combining different adjustment factors (age, fracture level, or BMD). Results: One thousand six hundred thirty-two women (mean ± SD) 64.4 ± 7.5 years, BMI 25.9 ± 4.5 kg/m 2 , were followed for 4.4 years and 133 experienced MOF. The association of one SD decrease L1-L3 BMD with the odds ratios (ORs) of MOF was OR 1.32 (95%CI 1.15–1.53), L2-L4 BMD was 1.25 (95%CI 1.09–1.42), and L1-L4 BMD was 1.30 (95%CI 1.14–1.48). One SD decrease in L1-L3 TBS was more strongly associated with the odds of having a MOF (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.34–2.00), than one SD decrease in L2-L4 TBS (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.21–1.81), or in L1-L4 TBS (OR 1.60, CI 95% 1.32–1.95). Conclusion: Current findings indicate that L1-L3 is an optimal combination for the TBS or LS-BMD calculation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11657-022-01123-8

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Pothuaud L, Carceller P, Hans D (2008) Correlations between grey-level variations in 2D projection images (TBS) and 3D microarchitecture: applications in the study of human trabecular bone microarchitecture. Bone 42(4):775–787 · DOI
  2. Roux JP, Wegrzyn J, Boutroy S, Bouxsein ML, Hans D, Chapurlat R (2013) The predictive value of trabecular bone score (TBS) on whole lumbar vertebrae mechanics: an ex vivo study. Osteoporos Int 24(9):2455–2460 · DOI
  3. Winzenrieth R, Michelet F, Hans D (2013) Three-dimensional (3D) microarchitecture correlations with 2D projection image gray-level variations assessed by trabecular bone score using high-resolution computed tomographic acquisitions: effects of resolution and noise. J Clin Densitom 16(3):287–296 · DOI
  4. Hans D, Barthe N, Boutroy S, Pothuaud L, Winzenrieth R, Krieg MA (2011) Correlations between trabecular bone score, measured using anteroposterior dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry acquisition, and 3-dimensional parameters of bone microarchitecture: an experimental study on human cadaver vertebrae. J Clin Densitom 14(3):302–312 · DOI
  5. McCloskey EV, Odén A, Harvey NC, Leslie WD, Hans D, Johansson H et al (2016) A meta-analysis of trabecular bone score in fracture risk prediction and its relationship to FRAX. J Bone Miner Res 31(5):940–948 · DOI
  6. Silva BC, Leslie WD, Resch H, Lamy O, Lesnyak O, Binkley N et al (2014) Trabecular bone score: a noninvasive analytical method based upon the DXA image. J Bone Miner Res 29(3):518–530 · DOI
  7. McCloskey EV, Odén A, Harvey NC, Leslie WD, Hans D, Johansson H et al (2015) Adjusting fracture probability by trabecular bone score. Calcif Tissue Int 96(6):500–509 · DOI
  8. Lewiecki EM, Watts NB, McClung MR, Petak SM, Bachrach LK, Shepherd JA et al (2004) Official positions of the international society for clinical densitometry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89(8):3651–3655 · DOI
  9. Girardi FP, Parvataneni HK, Sandhu HS, Cammisa FP Jr, Grewal H, Schneider R et al (2001) Correlation between vertebral body rotation and two-dimensional vertebral bone density measurement. Osteoporos Int 12(9):738–740 · DOI
  10. Shevroja E, Marques-Vidal P, Aubry-Rozier B, Hans G, Rivadeneira F, Lamy O et al (2019) Cohort Profile: The OsteoLaus study. Int J Epidemiol 48(4):1046–1047 · DOI
  11. Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8(9):1137–1148 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Aubry-Rozier B, Fabreguet I, Iglesias K, Lamy O, Hans D (2017) Impact of level of expertise versus the statistical tool on vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) readings in cohort studies. Osteoporos Int 28(2):523–527 · DOI
  13. Do HM, Kim BS, Marcellus ML, Curtis L, Marks MP (2005) Prospective analysis of clinical outcomes after percutaneous vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26(7):1623–1628
  14. Al-Ali F, Barrow T, Luke K (2009) Vertebroplasty: what is important and what is not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30(10):1835–1839 · DOI
  15. Fujiwara T, Akeda K, Yamada J, Kondo T, Sudo A (2019) Endplate and intervertebral disc injuries in acute and single level osteoporotic vertebral fractures: is there any association with the process of bone healing? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20(1):336 · DOI
  16. Siminoski K, Lee KC, Jen H, Warshawski R, Matzinger MA, Shenouda N et al (2012) Anatomical distribution of vertebral fractures: comparison of pediatric and adult spines. Osteoporos Int 23(7):1999–2008 · DOI
  17. Lorente Ramos RM, AzpeitiaArmán J, ArévaloGaleano N, Muñoz Hernández A, García Gómez JM, Gredilla MJ (2012) Dual energy X-ray absorptimetry: fundamentals, methodology, and clinical applications. Radiologia 54(5):410–423 · DOI
  18. Tuna F, Yavuz S, DemirbağKabayel DD, Sarıkaya A (2017) Effects of clinical reanalysis in dual energy X-ray absorptiometry reports. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil 63(3):201–206 · DOI
  19. Cetin A, Ozgüçlü E, Ozçakar L, Akinci A (2008) Evaluation of the patient positioning during DXA measurements in daily clinical practice. Clin Rheumatol 27(6):713–715 · DOI
  20. Messina C, Bandirali M, Sconfienza LM, D’Alonzo NK, Di Leo G, Papini GD et al (2015) Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Eur Radiol 25(5):1504–1511 · DOI
  21. Krueger D, Shives E, Siglinsky E, Libber J, Buehring B, Hansen KE et al (2019) DXA errors are common and reduced by use of a reporting template. J Clin Densitom 22(1):115–124 · DOI
  22. Promma S, Sritara C, Wipuchwongsakorn S, Chuamsaamarkkee K, Utamakul C, Chamroonrat W et al (2018) Errors in patient positioning for bone mineral density assessment by dual X-ray absorptiometry: effect of technologist retraininG. J Clin Densitom 21(2):252–259 · DOI
  23. Padlina I, Gonzalez-Rodriguez E, Hans D, Metzger M, Stoll D, Aubry-Rozier B et al (2017) The lumbar spine age-related degenerative disease influences the BMD not the TBS: the Osteolaus cohort. Osteoporos Int 28(3):909–915 · DOI
  24. Fujiwara S, Kasagi F, Masunari N, Naito K, Suzuki G, Fukunaga M (2003) Fracture prediction from bone mineral density in Japanese men and women. J Bone Miner Res 18(8):1547–1553 · DOI
  25. Cummings SR, Cawthon PM, Ensrud KE, Cauley JA, Fink HA, Orwoll ES (2006) BMD and risk of hip and nonvertebral fractures in older men: a prospective study and comparison with older women. J Bone Miner Res 21(10):1550–1556 · DOI
  26. Schuit SC, van der Klift M, Weel AE, de Laet CE, Burger H, Seeman E et al (2004) Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study. Bone 34(1):195–202 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Wu Q, Xiao X, Xu Y (2020) Evaluating the performance of the WHO international reference standard for osteoporosis diagnosis in postmenopausal women of varied polygenic score and race. J Clin Med 9(2) · DOI
  28. Jain RK, Narang DK, Hans D, Vokes TJ (2017) Ethnic differences in trabecular bone score. J Clin Densitom 20(2):172–179 · DOI
  29. Zemel BS, Wasserman H, Kelly A, Fan B, Shepherd J, Lappe J et al (2020) Intermachine differences in DXA measurements vary by skeletal site, and impact the assessment of low bone density in children. Bone 141:115581 · DOI
  30. Tataranni PA, Pettitt DJ, Ravussin E (1996) Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: inter-machine variability. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 20(11):1048–1050

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 18

Metadata

Authors
Shevroja, E., Mo Costabella, F., Gonzalez Rodriguez, E., Lamy, O., & Hans, D.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
Corresponding author
Hans, Didier
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Osteoporosis
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-06-09
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
83-83
ISSN
  • 1862-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1862-3522
DOI
10.1007/s11657-022-01123-8
PMC
PMC9184435
OpenAlex
W4281639375
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Archives of Osteoporosis (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Swiss National Foundation for Science
  • University of Lausanne
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Keywords
lumbar spine bone mineral density, trabecular bone score, vertebral fractures, major osteoporotic fracture
MeSH terms
Cancellous Bone, Female, Humans, Lumbar Vertebrae, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Osteoporotic 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