Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 285

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association of Five Quantitative Ultrasound Devices and Bone Densitometry With Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures in a Population-Based Sample: The OPUS Study

Open access
Dr Glüer, Claus C, Eastell, Richard, Reid, David M, Felsenberg, Dieter, Roux, Christian, Barkmann, Reinhard, Timm, Wolfram, Blenk, Tilo, Armbrecht, Gabi, Stewart, Alison, Clowes, Jackie, Thomasius, Friederike E, Kolta, Sami·2004·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

We compared the performance of five QUS devices with DXA in a population-based sample of 2837 women. All QUS approaches discriminated women with and without osteoporotic vertebral fractures. QUS of the calcaneus performed as well as central DXA. Introduction: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) methods have found widespread use for the assessment of bone status in osteoporosis, but their optimal use remains to be established. To determine QUS performance for current devices in direct comparison with central DXA, we initiated a large population-based investigation, the Osteoporosis and Ultrasound Study (OPUS). Materials and Methods: A total of 463 women 20–39 years of age and 2374 women 55–79 years of age were measured on five different QUS devices along with DXA of the spine and the proximal femur. Their vertebral fracture status was evaluated radiographically. The association of QUS and DXA with vertebral fracture status was evaluated using logistic regression. Results: All QUS approaches tested discriminated women with and without osteoporotic vertebral fractures (20% height reduction), with age-adjusted standardized odds ratios ranging 1.2–1.3 for amplitude-dependent speed of sound (AD-SOS) at the finger phalanges, 1.2–1.4 for broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) at the calcaneus, and 1.4–1.5 for speed of sound (SOS) at the calcaneus, 1.4–1.6 for DXA of the total femur, and 1.5–1.6 for DXA at the spine. For more severe fractures (40% height reduction), age-adjusted standardized odds ratios increased to up to 1.9 for DXA of the spine and 2.3 for SOS of the calcaneus. Conclusions: In conclusion, all five QUS devices tested showed significant age-adjusted differences between subjects with and without vertebral fracture. When selecting the strongest variable, QUS of the calcaneus worked as well as central DXA for identification of women at high risk for prevalent osteoporotic vertebral fractures. QUS-based case-finding strategies would allow halving the number of radiographs in high-risk populations, and this strategy works increasingly well for women with more severe vertebral fractures. It is likely that the good performance of QUS was in part achieved by rigorous quality assurance measures that should also be used in clinical practice.

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 · 10.1359/jbmr.040304

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 285

Metadata

Authors
Dr Glüer, C. C., Eastell, R., Reid, D. M., Felsenberg, D., Roux, C., Barkmann, R., Timm, W., Blenk, T., Armbrecht, G., Stewart, A., Clowes, J., Thomasius, F. E., & Kolta, S.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2004-05-01
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
782-793
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W2095569436
Cited by
285
References
6
FWCI
21.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Association of Five Quantitative Ultrasound Devices and Bone Densitometry With Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures in a Population-Based Sample: The OPUS Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1359/jbmr.040304
The paper
Dr Glüer, C. C., Eastell, R., Reid, D. M., Felsenberg, D., Roux, C., Barkmann, R., Timm, W., Blenk, T., Armbrecht, G., Stewart, A., Clowes, J., Thomasius, F. E., & Kolta, S. (2004). Association of Five Quantitative Ultrasound Devices and Bone Densitometry With Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures in a Population-Based Sample: The OPUS Study. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.040304

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.