Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 2/2013

01-02-2013 | Musculoskeletal

Review of radiological scoring methods of osteoporotic vertebral fractures for clinical and research settings

Authors: Ling Oei, Fernando Rivadeneira, Felisia Ly, Stephan J. Breda, M. Carola Zillikens, Albert Hofman, André G. Uitterlinden, Gabriel P. Krestin, Edwin H. G. Oei

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease; vertebral fractures are the most common osteoporotic fractures.

Methods

Several radiological scoring methods using different criteria for osteoporotic vertebral fractures exist. Quantitative morphometry (QM) uses ratios derived from direct vertebral body height measurements to define fractures. Semi-quantitative (SQ) visual grading is performed according to height and area reduction. The algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method introduced a scheme to systematically rule out non-fracture deformities and diagnoses osteoporotic vertebral fractures based on endplate depression. The concordance across methods is currently a matter of debate.

Results

This article reviews the most commonly applied standardised radiographic scoring methods for osteoporotic vertebral fractures, attaining an impartial perspective of benefits and limitations. It provides image examples and discusses aspects that facilitate large-scale application, such as automated image analysis software and different imaging investigations. It also reviews the implications of different fracture definitions for scientific research and clinical practice.

Conclusion

Accurate standardised scoring methods for assessing osteoporotic vertebral fractures are crucial, considering that differences in definition will have implications for patient care and scientific research. Evaluation of the feasibility and concordance among methods will allow establishing their benefits and limitations, and most importantly, optimise their effectiveness for widespread application.

Key Points

• Several scoring methods using different criteria for assessing osteoporotic vertebral fractures exist.
• Standardised osteoporotic vertebral fracture assessment should be applicable to different radiological investigations.
• Accurate assessment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures is essential for proper patient management.
• Optimising feasibility of scoring methods enables widespread use in scientific research.
• Assessment of concordance between methods is important for application in patient care.
Literature
1.
Szulc P, Bouxsein ML (2011) Overview of osteoporosis: Epidemiology and clinical management. Vertebral Fracture Initiative Resource Document PART I
2.
Burger H, Van Daele PL, Grashuis K et al (1997) Vertebral deformities and functional impairment in men and women. J Bone Miner Res 12:152–157PubMedCrossRef
3.
Gold DT (1996) The clinical impact of vertebral fractures: quality of life in women with osteoporosis. Bone 18:185S–189SPubMedCrossRef
4.
Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM et al (1998) The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 128:793–800PubMed
5.
Oleksik A, Lips P, Dawson A et al (2000) Health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women with low BMD with or without prevalent vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 15:1384–1392PubMedCrossRef
6.
Oleksik AM, Ewing S, Shen W, van Schoor NM, Lips P (2005) Impact of incident vertebral fractures on health related quality of life (HRQOL) in postmenopausal women with prevalent vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 16:861–870PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ross PD (1997) Clinical consequences of vertebral fractures. Am J Med 103:30S–42S, discussion 42S-43SPubMedCrossRef
8.
Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Milch VE, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, Center JR (2009) Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women. JAMA 301:513–521PubMedCrossRef
9.
Ensrud KE, Thompson DE, Cauley JA et al (2000) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict mortality and hospitalization in older women with low bone mass. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:241–249PubMed
10.
11.
Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
van der Klift M, de Laet CE, McCloskey EV et al (2004) Risk factors for incident vertebral fractures in men and women: the Rotterdam Study. J Bone Miner Res 19:1172–1180PubMedCrossRef
14.
WHO (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its implication to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: Technical report series 843. World Health Organization, Geneva
15.
Kelsey JL, Samelson EJ (2009) Variation in risk factors for fractures at different sites. Curr Osteoporos Rep 7:127–133PubMedCrossRef
16.
Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ 3rd (1992) Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res 7:221–227PubMedCrossRef
17.
Black DM, Arden NK, Palermo L, Pearson J, Cummings SR (1999) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict hip fractures and new vertebral deformities but not wrist fractures. Study of osteoporotic fractures research group. J Bone Miner Res 14:821–828PubMedCrossRef
18.
McCloskey EV, Vasireddy S, Threlkeld J et al (2008) Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) with a densitometer predicts future fractures in elderly women unselected for osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 23:1561–1568PubMedCrossRef
19.
Melton LJ 3rd, Atkinson EJ, Cooper C, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1999) Vertebral fractures predict subsequent fractures. Osteoporos Int 10:214–221PubMedCrossRef
20.
Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C et al (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285:320–323PubMedCrossRef
21.
Williams AL, Al-Busaidi A, Sparrow PJ, Adams JE, Whitehouse RW (2009) Under-reporting of osteoporotic vertebral fractures on computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 69:179–183PubMedCrossRef
22.
Lewiecki EM, Laster AJ (2006) Clinical review: clinical applications of vertebral fracture assessment by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:4215–4222PubMedCrossRef
23.
Cooper C, Shah S, Hand DJ et al (1991) Screening for vertebral osteoporosis using individual risk factors. The multicentre vertebral fracture study group. Osteoporos Int 2:48–53PubMedCrossRef
24.
Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB et al (2005) Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 20:557–563PubMedCrossRef
25.
Gehlbach SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M, May S, Walker M, Kirkwood JR (2000) Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int 11:577–582PubMedCrossRef
26.
Bartalena T, Giannelli G, Rinaldi MF et al (2009) Prevalence of thoracolumbar vertebral fractures on multidetector CT: underreporting by radiologists. Eur J Radiol 69:555–559PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kim N, Rowe BH, Raymond G et al (2004) Underreporting of vertebral fractures on routine chest radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:297–300PubMed
28.
Guglielmi G, Diacinti D, van Kuijk C et al (2008) Vertebral morphometry: current methods and recent advances. Eur Radiol 18:1484–1496PubMedCrossRef
29.
Almen A, Tingberg A, Besjakov J, Mattsson S (2004) The use of reference image criteria in X-ray diagnostics: an application for the optimisation of lumbar spine radiographs. Eur Radiol 14:1561–1567PubMedCrossRef
30.
Hurxthal LM (1968) Measurement of anterior vertebral compressions and biconcave vertebrae. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 103:635–644PubMed
31.
Eastell R, Cedel SL, Wahner HW, Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd (1991) Classification of vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 6:207–215PubMedCrossRef
32.
McCloskey EV, Spector TD, Eyres KS et al (1993) The assessment of vertebral deformity: a method for use in population studies and clinical trials. Osteoporos Int 3:138–147PubMedCrossRef
33.
Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP (1989) Normal vertebral dimensions and normal variation in serial measurements of vertebrae. J Bone Miner Res 4:341–349PubMedCrossRef
34.
Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148PubMedCrossRef
35.
Ferrar L, Jiang G, Adams J, Eastell R (2005) Identification of vertebral fractures: an update. Osteoporos Int 16:717–728PubMedCrossRef
36.
Jiang G, Eastell R, Barrington NA, Ferrar L (2004) Comparison of methods for the visual identification of prevalent vertebral fracture in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 15:887–896PubMedCrossRef
37.
Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 312:1254–1259PubMedCrossRef
38.
Schuit SC, van der Klift M, Weel AE et al (2004) Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study. Bone 34:195–202PubMedCrossRef
39.
The European Prospective Osteoporosis (EPOS) Study Group (2002) The relationship between bone density and incident vertebral fracture in men and women. J Bone Miner Res 17:2214–2221CrossRef
40.
Lorente-Ramos R, Azpeitia-Arman J, Munoz-Hernandez A, Garcia-Gomez JM, Diez-Martinez P, Grande-Barez M (2011) Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis of osteoporosis: a practical guide. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:897–904PubMedCrossRef
41.
Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, Borgstrom F, Strom O, McCloskey E (2009) FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44:734–743PubMedCrossRef
42.
Cauley JA, Hochberg MC, Lui LY et al (2007) Long-term risk of incident vertebral fractures. JAMA 298:2761–2767PubMedCrossRef
43.
Kolta S, Quiligotti S, Ruyssen-Witrand A et al (2008) In vivo 3D reconstruction of human vertebrae with the three-dimensional X-ray absorptiometry (3D-XA) method. Osteoporos Int 19:185–192PubMedCrossRef
44.
Buehring B, Krueger D, Checovich M et al (2010) Vertebral fracture assessment: impact of instrument and reader. Osteoporos Int 21:487–494PubMedCrossRef
45.
Schousboe JT, Debold CR (2006) Reliability and accuracy of vertebral fracture assessment with densitometry compared to radiography in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 17:281–289PubMedCrossRef
46.
Damilakis J, Adams JE, Guglielmi G, Link TM (2010) Radiation exposure in X-ray-based imaging techniques used in osteoporosis. Eur Radiol 20:2707–2714PubMedCrossRef
47.
Samelson EJ, Christiansen BA, Demissie S et al (2011) Reliability of vertebral fracture assessment using multidetector CT lateral scout views: the Framingham Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 22:1123–1131PubMedCrossRef
48.
Burghardt AJ, Link TM, Majumdar S (2011) High-resolution computed tomography for clinical imaging of bone microarchitecture. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2179–2193PubMedCrossRef
49.
Krug R, Burghardt AJ, Majumdar S, Link TM (2010) High-resolution imaging techniques for the assessment of osteoporosis. Radiol Clin North Am 48:601–621PubMedCrossRef
50.
51.
Van Goethem JW, Maes M, Ozsarlak O, van den Hauwe L, Parizel PM (2005) Imaging in spinal trauma. Eur Radiol 15:582–590PubMedCrossRef
52.
Wilmink JT (1999) MR imaging of the spine: trauma and degenerative disease. Eur Radiol 9:1259–1266PubMedCrossRef
53.
Drevelegas A, Chourmouzi D, Boulogianni G, Sofroniadis I (2003) Imaging of primary bone tumors of the spine. Eur Radiol 13:1859–1871PubMedCrossRef
54.
Erlemann R (2006) Imaging and differential diagnosis of primary bone tumors and tumor-like lesions of the spine. Eur J Radiol 58:48–67PubMedCrossRef
55.
Brett A, Miller CG, Hayes CW et al (2009) Development of a clinical workflow tool to enhance the detection of vertebral fractures: accuracy and precision evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2437–2443CrossRef
56.
Guglielmi G, Palmieri F, Placentino MG, D’Errico F, Stoppino LP (2009) Assessment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures using specialized workflow software for 6-point morphometry. Eur J Radiol 70:142–148PubMedCrossRef
57.
Roberts MG, Oh T, Pacheco EM, Mohankumar R, Cootes TF, Adams JE (2012) Semi-automatic determination of detailed vertebral shape from lumbar radiographs using active appearance models. Osteoporos Int 23:655–664PubMedCrossRef
58.
Kim YM, Demissie S, Eisenberg R, Samelson EJ, Kiel DP, Bouxsein ML (2011) Intra-and inter-reader reliability of semi-automated quantitative morphometry measurements and vertebral fracture assessment using lateral scout views from computed tomography. Osteoporos Int 22:2677–2688PubMedCrossRef
59.
Link TM, Guglielmi G, van Kuijk C, Adams JE (2005) Radiologic assessment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: diagnostic and prognostic implications. Eur Radiol 15:1521–1532PubMedCrossRef
60.
Sørensen (1964) Scheuermann’s Juvenile Kyphosis: Clinical Appearances, Radiography, Aetiology, and Prognosis. Munksgaard
61.
Sachs B, Bradford D, Winter R, Lonstein J, Moe J, Willson S (1987) Scheuermann kyphosis. Follow-up of Milwaukee-brace treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69:50–57PubMed
62.
Bensch FV, Kiuru MJ, Koivikko MP, Koskinen SK (2004) Spine fractures in falling accidents: analysis of multidetector CT findings. Eur Radiol 14:618–624PubMedCrossRef
63.
Ferrar L, Jiang G, Schousboe JT, DeBold CR, Eastell R (2008) Algorithm-based qualitative and semiquantitative identification of prevalent vertebral fracture: agreement between different readers, imaging modalities, and diagnostic approaches. J Bone Miner Res 23:417–424PubMedCrossRef
64.
Wu CY, Li J, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative techniques for the assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 5:354–370PubMedCrossRef
65.
Black DM, Palermo L, Nevitt MC et al (1995) Comparison of methods for defining prevalent vertebral deformities: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res 10:890–902PubMedCrossRef
66.
Kim YM, Demissie S, Genant HK et al (2012) Identification of prevalent vertebral fractures using CT lateral scout views: a comparison of semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry and radiologist semi-quantitative grading. Osteoporos Int 23:1007–1016PubMedCrossRef
67.
Ferrar L, Jiang G, Cawthon PM et al (2007) Identification of vertebral fracture and non-osteoporotic short vertebral height in men: the MrOS study. J Bone Miner Res 22:1434–1441PubMedCrossRef
68.
Genant HK, Jergas M, Palermo L et al (1996) Comparison of semiquantitative visual and quantitative morphometric assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 11:984–996PubMedCrossRef
69.
Melton LJ 3rd, Wenger DE, Atkinson EJ et al (2006) Influence of baseline deformity definition on subsequent vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 17:978–985PubMedCrossRef
70.
Black DM, Palermo L, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Christensen L, Cummings SR (1999) Defining incident vertebral deformity: a prospective comparison of several approaches. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 14:90–101PubMedCrossRef
71.
Ziegler R, Scheidt-Nave C, Leidig-Bruckner G (1996) What is a vertebral fracture? Bone 18:169S–177SPubMedCrossRef
72.
Hofman A, van Duijn CM, Franco OH et al (2011) The Rotterdam Study: 2012 objectives and design update. Eur J Epidemiol 26:657–686PubMedCrossRef
73.
Siris ES, Genant HK, Laster AJ, Chen P, Misurski DA, Krege JH (2007) Enhanced prediction of fracture risk combining vertebral fracture status and BMD. Osteoporos Int 18:761–770PubMedCrossRef
74.
Chen JS, Sambrook PN (2011) Antiresorptive therapies for osteoporosis: a clinical overview. Nat Rev Endocrinol 8:81–91PubMedCrossRef
75.
Finigan J, Greenfield DM, Blumsohn A et al (2008) Risk factors for vertebral and nonvertebral fracture over 10 years: a population-based study in women. J Bone Miner Res 23:75–85PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Review of radiological scoring methods of osteoporotic vertebral fractures for clinical and research settings
Authors
Ling Oei
Fernando Rivadeneira
Felisia Ly
Stephan J. Breda
M. Carola Zillikens
Albert Hofman
André G. Uitterlinden
Gabriel P. Krestin
Edwin H. G. Oei
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2622-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

European Radiology 2/2013 Go to the issue

Magnetic Resonance

Fat deposition decreases diffusion parameters at MRI: a study in phantoms and patients with liver steatosis

Nuclear Medicine

Comparative diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT versus whole-body MRI for determination of remission status in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation

Experimental

Assessment of grating-based X-ray phase-contrast CT for differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ in an experimental ex vivo set-up

Musculoskeletal

SLAP tears: diagnosis using 3-T shoulder MR arthrography with the 3D isotropic turbo spin-echo space sequence versus conventional 2D sequences

Interventional

Occurrence of coring after needle insertion through a rubber stopper: study with prednisolone acetate

Computed Tomography

Initial experience with single-source dual-energy CT abdominal angiography and comparison with single-energy CT angiography: image quality, enhancement, diagnosis and radiation dose