4.6 Article

Epidemiology of Osteoporosis in an Isolated Sardinian Population by Using Quantitative Ultrasound

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 174, Issue 4, Pages 432-439

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr106

Keywords

cross-sectional studies; osteoporosis; prevalence; risk factors; ultrasonics

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research [5571/DSPAR/2002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed at estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia in a Sardinian isolated population using hand quantitative ultrasound and at investigating the associated factors. The authors utilized a subset of data from a large population-based epidemiologic survey carried out in the Ogliastra region of Sardinia between 2003 and 2008. The sample consists of 6,326 men and women aged >= 30 years, who underwent quantitative ultrasound at the phalanges, bioelectrical impedance, anthropometric measurements, blood tests, and a standardized epidemiologic questionnaire collecting sociodemographic, lifestyle, medical, physiologic, and pharmacologic data. The T-score thresholds for amplitude-dependent speed of sound of -3.2 standard deviations and between -3.2 and -1 standard deviations were used to diagnose osteoporosis and osteopenia, respectively. Prevalence of osteoporosis was 17.0% in women and 5.2% in men. Logistic regression analysis revealed that factors associated with osteoporosis were age, anthropometric and bioimpedance measures, alkaline phosphatase levels, and menopause in women. High education, exercise, and beer consumption seem to be protective factors, whereas a family history of osteoporosis is a risk factor. Results show that osteoporosis in this population is comparable with that found in different countries, suggesting that quantitative ultrasound could be used more widely to detect high-risk individuals for preventing osteoporotic fractures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available