Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Medicine

formerly Central European Journal of Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Darzynkiewicz, Zbigniew

1 Issue per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.484
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.484

CiteScore 2017: 0.53

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.154
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.264

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-5463
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 5, Issue 4

Issues

Volume 10 (2015)

Accuracy of quantitative ultrasound parameters in the diagnosis of osteoporosis

Raluca Pais
  • Department of Internal Medicine II and Rheumatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, 400012, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Remus Campean
  • Department of Statistics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, 400012, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Siao-Pin Simon
  • Department of Internal Medicine II and Rheumatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, 400012, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Calin Bolosiu
  • Department of Radiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, 400012, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Laura Muntean
  • Department of Internal Medicine II and Rheumatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, 400012, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Horatiu Bolosiu
  • Department of Internal Medicine II and Rheumatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, 400012, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2010-05-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-009-0076-8

Abstract

Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is of increasing interest for evaluation of osteoporosis because, compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), it is portable, less expensive, and radiation-free. The aim of our study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and cut-off values of quantitative ultrasound parameters in identifying patients with osteoporosis compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) standard definition. We performed a cross-sectional investigational study of 73 subjects, and determined total hip and lumbar spine T-scores by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (Prodigy Advance Lunar-GE). The QUS parameters (broadband ultrasound attenuation [BUA], speed of sound, bone mineral density, the stiffness index, and QUS T-score) were determined with Sahara Hologic equipment. The AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.67–0.95, p<0.05) for speed of sound (SOS) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.62–0.90, p<0.05) for BUA for the patients with DXA T-scores ≥ −1 DS; the cut-off values were 1542.2 meters per second for SOS and 63.3 dB/MHz for BUA. In patients with DXA T-scores ≤ − 2.5 DS, AUC was 0.80 (95% CI 0.70–0.90, p<0.05) for SOS, and 0.76 (95% CI 0.65–0.87, p<0.05) for BUA. The cut-off values were 1504.95 meters per second for SOS and 49.5 dB/MHz for BUA. Pearson correlation coefficients were positive and statistically significant (> 50%) for all QUS parameters in both groups, (2-tailed, p<0.05). QUS parameters correctly identified normal patients (false negative 34.21% and false positive 2.53%) and those with osteoporosis (false negative 8.55% and false positive 7.82%). The patients with QUS parameters between the cut-off values corresponding to DXA T-scores of −1 SD and − 2.5 SD should be further evaluated by DXA.

Keywords: Osteoporosis; Quantitative ultrasound; speed of sound; broadband ultrasound attenuation; T-Score; DXA; bone mineral density

  • [1] Kanis J.A., McCloskey E.V., Johansson H., Oden A., Melton J.L., Khaltaev N., A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis, Bone, 2008, 42, 467–475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2007.11.001CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [2] Laugier P., Quantitative ultrasound of bone: looking ahead, Joint Bone Spine, 2006, 73, 125–128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2005.10.012CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [3] Kanis J.A., Burlet N., Cooper C., Delmas P.D., Reginster J.Y., Borgstrom F., Rizzoli R., European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, Osteoporos Int., 2008, 19, 399–428 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0560-zCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [4] Sahara Clinical User’s Guide, 1998, Hologic Inc, USA Google Scholar

  • [5] Holi M.S., Radhakrishnan S., Swaranamani S., Ayavelan N.A., Quantitative ultrasound technique for the assessment of osteoporosis and prediction of fracture risk J. Pure Appl. Ultrason., 2005, 27, 55–60 Google Scholar

  • [6] Cook R.B., Collins D., Tucker J., Zioupos P., Comparison of questionnaire and quantitative ultrasound techniques as screening tools for DXA, Osteoporos Int., 2005, 16, 1565–1575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-1864-xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [7] Khaw K.T., Reeve J., Luben R., Prediction of total and hip fracture risk in men and women by quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus: EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study, Lancet, 2004, 363, 197–202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15325-1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8] Hans D., Dargent-Molina P., Schott A.M., Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study, Lancet 1996, 348, 511–514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(95)11456-4CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9] Krieg M.A., Cornuz J., Ruffieux C., Prediction of hip fracture risk by quantitative ultrasound in more than 7000 Swiss women > or = 70 years of age: comparison of three technologically different bone ultrasound devices in the SEMOF study, J Bone Miner Res., 2006, 21, 1457–1463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.060615CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10] Frost M.L., Blake G.M., Fogelman I., Can the WHO criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis be applied to calcaneal quantitative ultrasound? Osteoporos Int., 2000, 11, 321–330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001980070121CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [11] Boonen S., Nijs J., Borghs H., Peeters H., Vanderschueren D., Luyten F.P., Identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis by calcaneal ultrasound, metacarpal digital X-ray radiogrammetry and phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry: a comparative study, Osteoporos Int., 2005, 16, 93–100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1660-zCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [12] Kanis J.A., Glüer C.C., An update on the diagnosis and assessement of osteoporosis with densitometry, Osteoporosis Int., 2000, 11, 192–202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001980050281CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13] Ikeda I., Iki M., Morita A., Aihara H., Kagawa Y., Matsuzaki T., et al, Age-specific values and cutoff levels for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in quantitative ultrasound measurements at the calcaneus with SAHARA in healthy Japanese women: Japanese Population-Based Osteoporosis (JPOS) study, Calcif Tissue Int., 2002, 71, 1–9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00223-001-2079-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [14] Agren M., Karellas A., Leahey D., Marks S., Baran D., Ultrasound attenuation of the calcaneus: a sensitive and specific discriminator of osteopenia in postmenopausal women, Calcif Tissue Int., 1991, 48, 240–244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02556374CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15] Dubois E.F., Van den Bergh J.P., Smals A.G., Van de Meerendonk C.W., Zwinderman A.H., Schweitzer D.H., Comparison of quantitative ultrasound parameters with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in pre- and postmenopausal women, Neth J Med., 2001, 58, 62–70 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-2977(00)00102-9CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16] Falgarone G., Porcher R., Duche’ A., Kolta S., Dougados M., Roux C., Discrimination of osteoporotic patients with quantitative ultrasound using imaging or non-imaging device, Joint Bone Spine, 2004, 71, 419–423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2003.09.011CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17] Trimpou P., Bosaeus I., Bengtsson B.A., Landin-Wilhelmsen K., High correlation between quantitative ultrasound and DXA during 7 years of follow-up, Eur J Radiol 2009, (in press), doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.11.024 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [18] Damilakis J., Perisinakis K., Gourtsoyiannis N., Ultrasonometry of the Calcaneus: Optimum T-Score Thresholds for the Identification of Osteoporotic Subjects, Calcif Tissue Int., 2001, 68, 219–224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002230020014CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [19] Nayak S., Olkin I., Liu H., Grabe M., Gould M.K., Allen E., et al, Meta-Analysis: Accuracy of Quantitative Ultrasound for Identifying Patients with Osteoporosis, Ann Intern Med., 2006, 144, 832–841 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20] Kung A.W., Ho A.Y., Ross P.D., Reginster J.Y., Development of a clinical assessment tool in identifying Asian men with low bone mineral density and comparison of its usefulness to quantitative bone ultrasound, Osteoporos Int., 2005, 16, 849–855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1778-zCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21] Hodson J., Marsh J., Quantitative ultrasound and risk factor enquiry as predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis: comparative study in primary care, BMJ, 2003, 326, 1250–1251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7401.1250CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22] Cetin A., Ertürk H., Celiker R., Sivri A., Hascelik Z., The role of quantitative ultrasound in predicting osteoporosis defined by dual x-ray absorptiometry, Rheumatol Int., 2001, 20, 55–59 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00006857CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [23] Hans D., Hartl F., Krieg M. A., “Device-specific weighted Tscore for two quantitative ultrasounds: Operational propositions for the management of osteoporosis for 65 years and older women in Switzerland,” Osteoporos. Int., 2003, 14, 251–258 Google Scholar

  • [24] Welch A., Camus J., Dalzell N., Oakes S., Reeve J., Khaw K.T., Broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) of the heel bone and its correlates in men and women in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort: a crosssectional population-based study, Osteoporos Int., 2004, 15, 217–225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1410-7CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2010-05-30

Published in Print: 2010-08-01


Citation Information: Open Medicine, Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 478–485, ISSN (Online) 2391-5463, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-009-0076-8.

Export Citation

© 2009 Versita Warsaw. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Francesco Conversano, Roberto Franchini, Antonio Greco, Giulia Soloperto, Fernanda Chiriacò, Ernesto Casciaro, Matteo Aventaggiato, Maria Daniela Renna, Paola Pisani, Marco Di Paola, Antonella Grimaldi, Laura Quarta, Eugenio Quarta, Maurizio Muratore, Pascal Laugier, and Sergio Casciaro
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 2015, Volume 41, Number 1, Page 281
[2]
Thomas J. Schnitzer, Nicole Wysocki, Danielle Barkema, James Griffith, Victoria Lent, Meghan Romba, Rachel Welbel, Sheena Bhuva, Bindu Manyam, and Sarah Linn
PM&R, 2012, Volume 4, Number 10, Page 748
[3]
Aleksandar Dimić, Stojanovic Sonja, Nedovic Jovan, Stankovic Aleksandra, Stamenkovic Bojana, Milenkovic Sasa, and Mitic Valentina
Open Medicine, 2011, Volume 6, Number 2

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in