Combining bone resorption markers and heel quantitative ultrasound to discriminate between fracture cases and controls.
Fiche du document
2009
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s00198-009-0843-z
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/19184267
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/1433-2965[electronic]
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_BF3A9C15FC053
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations , https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer
Sujets proches
OsteolysisCiter ce document
D. Nanchen et al., « Combining bone resorption markers and heel quantitative ultrasound to discriminate between fracture cases and controls. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.1007/s00198-009-0843-z
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
This nested case-control analysis of a Swiss ambulatory cohort of elderly women assessed the discriminatory power of urinary markers of bone resorption and heel quantitative ultrasound for non-vertebral fractures. The tests all discriminated between cases and controls, but combining the two strategies yielded no additional relevant information. INTRODUCTION: Data are limited regarding the combination of bone resorption markers and heel quantitative bone ultrasound (QUS) in the detection of women at risk for fracture. METHODS: In a nested case-control analysis, we studied 368 women (mean age 76.2 +/- 3.2 years), 195 with low-trauma non-vertebral fractures and 173 without, matched for age, BMI, medical center, and follow-up duration, from a prospective study designed to predict fractures. Urinary total pyridinolines (PYD) and deoxypyridinolines (DPD) were measured by high performance liquid chromatography. All women underwent bone evaluations using Achilles+ and Sahara heel QUS. RESULTS: Areas under the receiver operating-characteristic curve (AUC) for discriminative models of the fracture group, with 95% confidence intervals, were 0.62 (0.56-0.68) and 0.59 (0.53-0.65) for PYD and DPD, and 0.64 (0.58-0.69) and 0.65 (0.59-0.71) for Achilles+ and Sahara QUS, respectively. The combination of resorption markers and QUS added no significant discriminatory information to either measurement alone with an AUC of 0.66 (0.60-0.71) for Achilles+ with PYD and 0.68 (0.62-0.73) for Sahara with PYD. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary bone resorption markers and QUS are equally discriminatory between non-vertebral fracture patients and controls. However, the combination of bone resorption markers and QUS is not better than either test used alone.