Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2021 | Ultrasound | Review

Fragility fracture discriminative ability of radius quantitative ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Y. Fu, C. Li, W. Luo, Z. Chen, Z. Liu, Y. Ding

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

The fragility fracture discriminative ability of radius quantitative ultrasound (QUS) was evaluated in a systematic review of 13 studies, including 16,681 individuals and 1296 fractures. The radial speed of sound (SOS) per standard deviation (SD) decrease contributed to an increased risk of total and hip fracture by 32% and 66% in women. Osteoporotic fracture, as a devastating consequence of osteoporosis, brings severe socio-economic burden. The availability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), as the gold standard of diagnosis, was quite limited in remote areas. Radius QUS measured by SOS shows potential in fracture discriminative ability where DXA equipment is not available. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the association between radius QUS and fracture risk. A detailed article search was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Libraries, CNKI, Wan-Fang database, VIP, and SinoMed for studies published between January 1980 and February 2020. We determined the estimated relative risk (RR) for fracture per each radial SOS SD decrease. A meta-analysis of studies was performed under the random-effects model. A total of 16,681 individuals were included in this review. Among the participants, 5892 were male and 10,789 were female. A total of 1296 cases of fragility fracture were included. With each SD decrease in radial SOS, the risk of overall fragility fracture and hip fracture was increased by 21% and 55%, respectively. Particularly, the risk was increased by 32% and 66% for women. The association was even stronger for postmenopausal women. Radius QUS showed great potential as an effective tool for fracture risk evaluation, especially for women.

(1991) Consensus development conference: prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 1:114–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880454

Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jönsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden: a report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Driessen JHM, Hansen L, Eriksen SA, van Onzenoort HAW, Henry RMA, van den Bergh J, Abrahamsen B, Vestergaard P, de Vries F (2016) The epidemiology of fractures in Denmark in 2011. Osteoporos Int 27:2017–2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3488-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lu YC, Lin YC, Lin YK, Liu YJ, Chang KH, Chieng PU, Chan WP (2016) Prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in older Chinese population based on bone mineral density at multiple skeletal sites. Sci Rep 6:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25206CrossRef

International Osteoporosis Foundation (2009) The Asian audit: epidemiology, costs and burden osteoporosis in Asia 2009.

Braithwaite RS, Col NF, Wong JB (2003) Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 51:364–370. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51110.xCrossRefPubMed

Turner DA, Fong R, Khioe S et al (2018) The cost-effectiveness of screening in the community to reduce osteoporotic fractures in older women in the UK: economic evaluation of the SCOOP Study. J Bone Miner Res 33:845–851. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, de Laet C, Delmas P, Eisman JA, Fujiwara S, Kroger H, Mellstrom D, Meunier PJ, Melton LJ III, O'Neill T, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2005) Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures. J Bone Miner Res 20:1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1359/JBMR.050304CrossRefPubMed

Watts NB (2011) The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®): Applications in clinical practice. J Women's Health 20:525–531. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2010.2294CrossRef

10.

Langton CM, Njeh CF, Hodgskinson R, Currey JD (1996) Prediction of mechanical properties of the human calcaneus by broadband ultrasonic attenuation. Bone 18:495–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/8756-3282(96)00086-5CrossRefPubMed

11.

Langton M, Palmer SB, Porter RW (1984) Attenuation in cancellous bone. Eng Med 13:89–91CrossRef

12.

McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, Odén A, Harvey NC, Bauer D, González-Macias J, Hans D, Kaptoge S, Krieg MA, Kwok T, Marin F, Moayyeri A, Orwoll E, Gluёr C, Johansson H (2015) Predictive ability of heel quantitative ultrasound for incident fractures: an individual-level meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 26:1979–1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3072-7CrossRefPubMed

13.

Marín F, González-Macías J, Díez-Pérez A, Palma S, Delgado-Rodríguez M (2006) Relationship between bone quantitative ultrasound and fractures: a meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res 21:1126–1135. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.060417CrossRefPubMed

14.

Schultz K, Wolf JM (2019) Emerging technologies in osteoporosis diagnosis. J Hand Surg [Am] 44:240–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.07.006CrossRef

15.

Glüer CC (1997) Quantitative ultrasound techniques for the assessment of osteoporosis: expert agreement on current status. J Bone Miner Res 12:1280–1288. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.8.1280CrossRefPubMed

16.

Frost ML, Blake GM, Fogelman I (2000) Can the WHO criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis be applied to calcaneal quantitative ultrasound? Osteoporos Int 11:321–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070121CrossRefPubMed

17.

Trimpou P, Bosaeus I, Bengtsson BÅ, Landin-Wilhelmsen K (2010) High correlation between quantitative ultrasound and DXA during 7 years of follow-up. Eur J Radiol 73:360–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.11.024CrossRefPubMed

18.

Gnudi S, Malavolta N, Ripamonti C, Caudarella R (1995) Ultrasound in the evaluation of osteoporosis: a comparison with bone mineral density at distal radius. Br J Radiol 68:476–480. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-68-809-476CrossRefPubMed

19.

Njeh CF, Saeed I, Grigorian M, Kendler DL, Fan B, Shepherd J, McClung M, Drake WM, Genant HK (2001) Assessment of bone status using speed of sound at multiple anatomical sites. Ultrasound Med Biol 27:1337–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-5629(01)00437-9CrossRefPubMed

20.

Editor T (2010) IOF World Congress on Osteoporosis & 10th European Congress on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis. Osteoporos Int 21:25–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1247-9CrossRef

21.

Oral A, Esmaeilzadeh S, Yalıman A, Sindel D, Kürsüz Köseoğlu P, Aydın T (2019) The ability of calcaneal and multisite quantitative ultrasound variables in the identification of osteoporosis in women and men. Turkish J Phys Med Rehabil 65:203–215. https://doi.org/10.5606/tftrd.2019.1894CrossRef

22.

Damilakis J, Papadokostakis G, Perisinakis K, Gourtsoyiannis N, Hadjipavlou A (2003) Can radial bone mineral density and quantitative ultrasound measurements reduce the number of women who need axial density skeletal assessment? Osteoporos Int 14:688–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1420-5CrossRefPubMed

23.

Goemaere S, Zmierczak H, Van Pottelbergh I, Kaufman JM (2002) Ability of peripheral bone assessments to predict areal bone mineral density at hip in community-dwelling elderly men. J Clin Densitom 5:219–228CrossRef

24.

(2014) IOF Regionals – 5th Asia-Pacific Osteoporosis Meeting. Osteoporos Int 25:583–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2892-1

25.

Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25:603–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-zCrossRefPubMed

26.

Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 29 February 2020

27.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186CrossRef

28.

Grant J, Hunter A (2006) Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J Intell Inf Syst 27:159–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-006-2974-4CrossRef

29.

DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2CrossRefPubMed

30.

Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor. J Stat Softw 36:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03CrossRef

31.

Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 315:629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7129.469CrossRef

32.

Moilanen P, Maatta M, Kilappa V et al (2013) Discrimination of fractures by low-frequency axial transmission ultrasound in postmenopausal females. Osteoporos Int 24:723–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2022-xCrossRefPubMed

33.

Tao B, Liu J-M, Li X-Y, Wang JG, Wang WQ, Ning G (2008) An assessment of the use of quantitative ultrasound and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians in determining the risk of nonvertebral fracture in postmenopausal Chinese women. J Bone Miner Metab 26:60–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-007-0798-0CrossRefPubMed

34.

Grampp S, Genant HK, Mathur A, Lang P, Jergas M, Takada M, Glüer CC, Lu Y, Chavez M (1997) Comparisons of noninvasive bone mineral measurements in assessing age-related loss, fracture discrimination, and diagnostic classification. J Bone Miner Res 12:697–711. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.5.697CrossRefPubMed

35.

Li D, Xue Y, Guo S (2009) The value of quantitative ultrasound in predicting fracture risk 049(008):67-68

36.

Schousboe JT, Riekkinen O, Karjalainen J (2017) Prediction of hip osteoporosis by DXA using a novel pulse-echo ultrasound device. Osteoporos Int 28:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3722-4CrossRefPubMed

37.

Karjalainen JP, Riekkinen O, Kröger H (2018) Pulse-echo ultrasound method for detection of post-menopausal women with osteoporotic BMD. Osteoporos Int 29:1193–1199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4408-xCrossRefPubMed

38.

Karjalainen JP, Riekkinen O, Toyras J et al (2016) New method for point-of-care osteoporosis screening and diagnostics. Osteoporos Int 27:971–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3387-4CrossRefPubMed

39.

(2016) Abstracts of osteoporosis conference 2016. Osteoporos Int 27:609–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3743-z

40.

(2015) Abstracts of osteoporosis conference 2015. Osteoporos Int 30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2763

41.

Olszynski WP, Brown JP, Adachi JD, Hanley DA, Ioannidis G, Davison KS, the CaMos Research Group (2013) Multisite quantitative ultrasound for the prediction of fractures over 5 years of follow-up: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 28:2027–2034. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1931CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Lee SH, Khang Y-H, Lim K-H, Kim BJ, Koh JM, Kim GS, Kim H, Cho NH (2010) Clinical risk factors for osteoporotic fracture: a population-based prospective cohort study in Korea. J Bone Miner Res 25:369–378. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.090722CrossRefPubMed

43.

Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Malavolta N (2000) Quantitative ultrasound and bone densitometry to evaluate the risk of nonspine fractures: a prospective study. Osteoporos Int 11:518–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070095CrossRefPubMed

44.

Biver E, Pepe J, de Sire A, Chevalley T, Ferrari S (2019) Associations between radius low-frequency axial ultrasound velocity and bone fragility in elderly men and women. Osteoporos Int 30:411–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4725-0CrossRefPubMed

45.

Schneider J, Varga P, Raum K et al (2015) Multisite ultrasound axial transmission study in postmenopausal women using optimized first arriving signal velocity measurements. 2015 6th European Symposium on Ultrasonic Characterization of Bone, Corfu

46.

Talmant M, Kolta S, Roux C, Haguenauer D, Vedel I, Cassou B, Bossy E, Laugier P (2009) In vivo performance evaluation of bi-directional ultrasonic axial transmission for cortical bone assessment. Ultrasound Med Biol 35:912–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.12.008CrossRefPubMed

47.

Clowes JA, Eastell R, Peel NFA (2005) The discriminative ability of peripheral and axial bone measurements to identify proximal femoral, vertebral, distal forearm and proximal humeral fractures: a case control study. Osteoporos Int 16:1794–1802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-1931-3CrossRefPubMed

48.

Nguyen TV, Center JR, Eisman JA (2004) Bone mineral density-independent association of quantitative ultrasound measurements and fracture risk in women. Osteoporos Int 15:942–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1717-zCrossRefPubMed

49.

Hans D, Genton L, Allaoua S, Pichard C, Slosman DO (2003) Hip fracture discrimination study: QUS of the radius and the calcaneum. J Clin Densitom 6:163–172. https://doi.org/10.1385/JCD:6:2:163CrossRefPubMed

50.

Hans D, Srivastav SK, Singal C, Barkmann R, Njeh CF, Kantorovich E, Glüer CC, Genant HK (1999) Does combining the results from multiple bone sites measured by a new quantitative ultrasound device improve discrimination of hip fracture? J Bone Miner Res 14:644–651. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.4.644CrossRefPubMed

51.

Knapp KM, Blake GM, Spector TD, Fogelman I (2001) Multisite quantitative ultrasound: precision, age- and menopause-related changes, fracture discrimination, and T-score equivalence with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 12:456–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980170090CrossRefPubMed

52.

Barkmann R, Kantorovich E, Singal C, Hans D, Genant HK, Heller M, Glüer CC (2000) A new method for quantitative ultrasound measurements at multiple skeletal sites: first results of precision and fracture discrimination. J Clin Densitom 3:1–7CrossRef

53.

Weiss M, Ben-Shlomo A, Hagag P, Ish-Shalom S (2000) Discrimination of proximal hip fracture by quantitative ultrasound measurement at the radius. Osteoporos Int 11:411–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070108CrossRefPubMed

54.

Fink HA, Milavetz DL, Palermo L, Nevitt MC, Cauley JA, Genant HK, Black DM, Ensrud KE, Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group (2005) What proportion of incident radiographic vertebral deformities is clinically diagnosed and vice versa? J Bone Miner Res 20:1216–1222. https://doi.org/10.1359/JBMR.050314CrossRefPubMed

55.

Cook RB, Collins D, Tucker J, Zioupos P (2005) The ability of peripheral quantitative ultrasound to identify patients with low bone mineral density in the hip or spine. Ultrasound Med Biol 31:625–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.02.003CrossRefPubMed

56.

Cook RB, Collins D, Tucker J, Zioupos P (2005) Comparison of questionnaire and quantitative ultrasound techniques as screening tools for DXA. Osteoporos Int 16:1565–1575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-1864-xCrossRefPubMed

57.

Fitzgerald GE, Anachebe T, McCarroll KG, O’Shea F (2020) Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound has a role in out ruling low bone mineral density in axial spondyloarthropathy. Clin Rheumatol 39:1971–1979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04876-9CrossRefPubMed

58.

Hernández JL, Marin F, González-Macías J et al (2004) Discriminative capacity of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and of osteoporosis and fracture risk factors in postmenopausal women with osteoporotic fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 74:357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-003-0158-6CrossRefPubMed

59.

Lin W, Serra-Hsu F, Cheng J, Qin YX (2012) Frequency specific ultrasound attenuation is sensitive to trabecular bone structure. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:2198–2207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.07.020CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Cheng J, Serra-Hsu F, Tian Y, Lin W, Qin YX (2011) Effects of phase cancellation and receiver aperture size on broadband ultrasonic attenuation for trabecular bone in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 37:2116–2125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2011.08.009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Tavakoli MB, Evans JA (1991) Dependence of the velocity and attenuation of ultrasound in bone on the mineral content. Phys Med Biol 36:1529–1537. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/36/11/012CrossRefPubMed

62.

Sistrom CL, Garvan CW (2004) Proportions, odds, and risk. Radiology 230:12–19. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2301031028CrossRefPubMed

63.

Holloway KL, Sajjad MA, Mohebbi M, Kotowicz MA, Livingston PM, Khasraw M, Hakkennes S, Dunning TL, Brumby S, Page RS, Pedler D, Sutherland A, Venkatesh S, Brennan-Olsen SL, Williams LJ, Pasco JA (2018) The epidemiology of hip fractures across western Victoria, Australia. Bone 108:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2017.12.007CrossRefPubMed

64.

Tsukutani Y, Hagino H, Ito Y, Nagashima H (2015) Epidemiology of fragility fractures in Sakaiminato, Japan: incidence, secular trends, and prognosis. Osteoporos Int 26:2249–2255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3124-zCrossRefPubMed

65.

Briot K, Maravic M, Roux C (2015) Changes in number and incidence of hip fractures over 12 years in France. Bone 81:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2015.07.009CrossRefPubMed

66.

Zhang J, Yu K (1998) What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. J Am Med Assoc 280:1690–1691CrossRef

67.

Olszynski WP, Shawn Davison K, Adachi JD, Brown JP, Cummings SR, Hanley DA, Harris SP, Hodsman AB, Kendler D, McClung MR, Miller PD, Yuen CK (2004) Osteoporosis in men: epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Clin Ther 26:15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2918(04)90002-1CrossRefPubMed

68.

Melton LJ, Chrischilles EA, Cooper C et al (2005) How many women have osteoporosis? JBMR Anniversary Classic. JBMR, Volume 7, Number 9, 1992. J Bone Miner Res 20:886–892. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2005.20.5.886CrossRefPubMed

69.

Khaw KT, Reeve J, Luben R, Bingham S, Welch A, Wareham N, Oakes S, Day N (2004) Prediction of total and hip fracture risk in men and women by quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus: EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study. Lancet 363:197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15325-1CrossRefPubMed

70.

Varenna M, Sinigaglia L, Adami S, Giannini S, Isaia G, Maggi S, Filipponi P, di Munno O, Maugeri D, de Feo D, Crepaldi G (2005) Association of quantitative heel ultrasound with history of osteoporotic fractures in elderly men: The ESOPO study. Osteoporos Int 16:1749–1754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-1914-4CrossRefPubMed

71.

Welch A, Camus J, Dalzell N, Oakes S, Reeve J, Khaw KT (2004) Broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) of the heel bone and its correlates in men and women in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort: a cross-sectional population-based study. Osteoporos Int 15:217–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1410-7CrossRefPubMed

72.

Wu XP, Liao EY, Huang G, Dai RC, Zhang H (2003) A comparison study of the reference curves of bone mineral density at different skeletal sites in native Chinese, Japanese, and American Caucasian women. Calcif Tissue Int 73:122–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-002-1069-7CrossRefPubMed

73.

Drake WM, McClung M, Njeh CF, Genant HK, Rosen C, Watts N, Kendler DL (2001) Multisite bone ultrasound measurement on North American female reference population. J Clin Densitom 4:239–248. https://doi.org/10.1385/JCD:4:3:239CrossRefPubMed

74.

Hayman SR, Drake WM, Kendler DL, Olszynski WP, Webber CE, Rosen CJ, Genant HK, Orwoll ES, Pickard LE, Adachi JD (2002) North American male reference population for speed of sound in bone at multiple skeletal sites. J Clin Densitom 5:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1385/JCD:5:1:063CrossRefPubMed

Title: Fragility fracture discriminative ability of radius quantitative ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Y. Fu
C. Li
W. Luo
Z. Chen
Z. Liu
Y. Ding
Publication date: 01-01-2021
Publisher: Springer London
Keywords: Ultrasound
Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis
Ultrasound
Published in: Osteoporosis International / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05559-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Fragility fracture discriminative ability of radius quantitative ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Fragility fractures and health-related quality of life: does socio-economic status widen the gap? A population-based study

Burden of disease associated with X-linked hypophosphataemia in adults: a systematic literature review

A pragmatic proposal for triaging DXA testing during the COVID-19 global pandemic

Upper gastrointestinal safety of oral bisphosphonate in hospitalized patients

Physical function in UK adults with osteogenesis imperfecta: a cross-sectional analysis of the RUDY study

Disruption of bone densitometry practice in a Northern Italy Orthopedic Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic