You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 167 No. 15, Aug 13/27, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Investigation
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Osteoporosis
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Single-Site vs Multisite Bone Density Measurement for Fracture Prediction

William D. Leslie, MD, MSc; Lisa M. Lix, PhD; James F. Tsang, BSc; Patricia A. Caetano, PhD; for the Manitoba Bone Density Program

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(15):1641-1647.

Background  Bone density measurement with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry is widely used for fracture risk assessment. Discordance between measurement sites is common, but it is unclear how this affects fracture prediction.

Methods  We performed a historical cohort study among 16 505 women 50 years or older at the time of baseline dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry of the spine and hip (mean ± SD observation period, 3.2 ± 1.5 years). The study population was drawn from a database that contains all clinical dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry test results for the province of Manitoba, Canada. Each subject's longitudinal health service record was assessed for the presence of fracture codes after bone density testing. The likelihood ratio test was used to assess the improvement in fracture prediction from Cox proportional hazards models using bone density covariates from a single site or from combined sites.

Results  Age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation for osteoporotic fracture ranged from 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.87) for the lumbar spine to 1.85 (95% CI, 1.70-2.01) for the total hip, with intermediate values for the femur neck (HR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.62-1.92]) and trochanter (HR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.63-1.92]). For fracture prediction, use of the minimum bone density measurement was no better than use of a hip measurement alone. When the total hip measurement was included in a fracture prediction model for the overall population, none of the other measurements added substantial information. The spine was the most useful site for the prediction of spine fractures alone.

Conclusions  Proximal femur bone density measurements consistently outperformed lumbar spine measurements for global fracture prediction. In this cohort, the total hip was the best site for overall fracture assessment.


Author Affiliations: Faculty of Medicine (Dr Leslie and Mr Tsang), Department of Community Health Sciences, Manitoba Centre for Health Policy (Dr Lix), and Faculty of Pharmacy (Dr Caetano), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2007 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.