...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of bone and mineral research: the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research >Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture Prevalence Varies Widely Between Qualitative and Quantitative Radiological Assessment Methods: The Rotterdam Study
【24h】

Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture Prevalence Varies Widely Between Qualitative and Quantitative Radiological Assessment Methods: The Rotterdam Study

机译:骨质疏松症椎骨骨折流行率在定性和定量放射性评估方法之间存在广泛:鹿特丹研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

ABSTRACT Accurate diagnosis of vertebral osteoporotic fractures is crucial for the identification of individuals at high risk of future fractures. Different methods for radiological assessment of vertebral fractures exist, but a gold standard is lacking. The aim of our study was to estimate statistical measures of agreement and prevalence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in the population‐based Rotterdam Study, across two assessment methods. The quantitative morphometry assisted by SpineAnalyzer? (QM SA) method evaluates vertebral height loss that affects vertebral shape whereas the algorithm‐based qualitative (ABQ) method judges endplate integrity and includes guidelines for the differentiation of vertebral fracture and nonfracture deformities. Cross‐sectional radiographs were assessed for 7582 participants aged 45 to 95 years. With QM SA, the prevalence was 14.2% (95% CI, 13.4% to 15.0%), compared to 4.0% (95% CI, 3.6% to 4.5%) with ABQ. Inter‐method agreement according to kappa (κ) was 0.24. The highest agreement between methods was among females (κ?=?0.31), participants age 80 years (κ?=?0.40), and at the L 1 level (κ?=?0.40). With ABQ, most fractures were found at the thoracolumbar junction (T 12 –L 1 ) followed by the T 7 –T 8 level, whereas with QM SA, most deformities were in the mid thoracic (T 7 –T 8 ) and lower thoracic spine (T 11 –T 12 ), with similar number of fractures in both peaks. Excluding mild QM SA deformities (grade 1 with QM) from the analysis increased, the agreement between the methods from κ?=?0.24 to 0.40, whereas reexamining mild deformities based on endplate depression increased agreement from κ?=?0.24 to 0.50 ( p 0.001). Vertebral fracture prevalence differs significantly between QM SA and ABQ; reexamining QM mild deformities based on endplate depression would increase the agreement between methods. More widespread and consistent application of an optimal method may improve clinical care. ? 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
机译:摘要椎骨骨质疏松骨折的准确诊断对于未来裂缝的高风险识别个体是至关重要的。存在不同的椎体骨折的放射性评估方法,但缺乏金标准。我们的研究目的是估计两种评估方法估算基于人口鹿特丹研究中骨质疏松椎体骨折的协议和患病率的统计措施。 Spineanalyzer辅助的定量形态学? (QM SA)方法评估影响椎体形状的椎体高度损失,而基于算法的定性(ABQ)方法判断端板完整性,包括椎骨骨折和非触觉畸形的分化指南。评估45至95岁的7582名参与者的横截面射线照片。用QM SA,患病率为14.2%(95%CI,13.4%至15.0%),与ABQ为4.0%(95%CI,3.6%至4.5%)。根据Kappa(κ)的方法间协议为0.24。方法之间的最高协议是女性(κ?= 0.31),参与者年龄和 80年(κα=?0.40),并且在L 1级(κ=?0.40)。随着ABQ,大多数骨折在胸腰带接合处(T 12 -L 1),然后是T 7 -T 8水平,而对于QM SA,大多数畸形位于中间胸部(T 7 -T 8)和下胸部脊柱(T 11-T 12),两种峰值中的骨折数量相似。从分析中排除温和QM SA畸形(QM等级)增加,来自κα= 0.24至0.40的方法之间的协议,而基于端板凹陷重新审视温和的畸形增加了καλ= 0.24至0.50(p & 0.001)。椎体骨折流行率在QM SA和ABQ之间显着不同;根据端板抑制重新审视QM轻度畸形将增加方法之间的协议。更广泛和一致地应用最佳方法可以改善临床护理。还2017年美国骨骼和矿物学研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号