4.3 Article

Number of osteoporotic sites as a modifying factor for bone mineral density

Journal

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL METABOLISM
Volume 33, Issue 6, Pages 684-693

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00774-014-0635-1

Keywords

Bone mineral density; Discordance; Fracture risk assessment; Osteoporosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Discordance has been proposed as a new predictor of fracture risk that may affect fracture risk via bone mineral density (BMD). With an emphasis on better understanding the relationship between discordance and BMD, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of the number of osteoporotic sites, as an indicator of discordance, on BMD and to explore the clinical significance of BMD modification by this factor. This study was based on data obtained from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2011, which is a nationwide cross-sectional study. Among postmenopausal women aged 50 years or older, 3,849 women whose BMD was measured at three sites (lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip) were included in the study. The diagnosis was consistent across sites in only 39.2-59.0 % of cases. Lumbar spine T-score was reduced by 0.163 for two osteoporotic sites and by 0.462 for three osteoporotic sites, compared with having one osteoporotic site at the lumbar spine only. Femoral neck T-score was reduced by 0.609 for three osteoporotic sites compared with one or two osteoporotic sites. Using BMD adjusted for discordance, we found fracture risk probability changed significantly. Our results confirmed that BMD discordance was considerably high among Korean women in their 50s and older owing to site-dependent differences in the pattern of BMD reduction with age. Mean BMD decreased with increasing number of osteoporotic sites. Using a modified BMD adjusted for the number of osteoporotic sites may offer more accurate fracture risk assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available