Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
  • KSBMR

JBM : Journal of Bone Metabolism

OPEN ACCESS
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICIES
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Page Path

3
results for

"Lumbar vertebra"

Article category

Keywords

Publication year

Authors

"Lumbar vertebra"

Original Articles

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the longitudinal changes of trabecular bone score (TBS) during and after bisphosphonate (BP) treatment in postmenopausal Korean women with osteoporosis.

Methods

We analyzed 191 patients who took BP and underwent bone mineral density (BMD) test for the period from January 2010 to December 2015. The mean follow up period during treatment and after treatment was 22.8 months and 18 months, respectively. The TBS and BMD values were evaluated by the percent changes relative to the baseline.

Results

In 191 patients, who treated with BPs, L-spine BMD increased 3.65±0.5% and TBS increased 0.26±0.4% from baseline during first 1 year. At 2 to 4 years, the changes of BMD and TBS from baseline gradually increased up to 9.3±3.25% and 2.69±0.98% and both results showed statistically significant correlation. In 86 patients who stopped BPs, L-spine BMD decreased -0.54±1.07% and TBS increased 0.33±1.96% from baseline during 3 years follow up period.

Conclusions

Lumbar spine TBS increase over time with BPs treatment although the changes were less than that of BMD. Also, it preserve for years after stopping treatment, as the changes of lumbar spine BMD. The results of BMD and TBS showed significant correlation during treatment but not during drug withdrawal.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • 1. Trabecular Bone Score: From Over a Decade of Evidence to a Connected Bone Health Ecosystem
    Karen Hind, Madeleine Davies, Elena Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Didier Hans
    Osteologie.2025; 34(03): 213.     CrossRef
  • 2. Clinical Use of Trabecular Bone Score: The 2023 ISCD Official Positions
    Heenam Goel, Neil Binkley, Miranda Boggild, Wing P. Chan, William D. Leslie, Eugene McCloskey, Sarah L. Morgan, Barbara C. Silva, Angela M. Cheung
    Journal of Clinical Densitometry.2024; 27(1): 101452.     CrossRef
  • 3. Il ruolo del Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) nella gestione dell’osteoporosi primaria e secondaria
    Fabio Bioletto, Massimo Procopio, Marco Barale
    L'Endocrinologo.2024; 25(6): 634.     CrossRef
  • 4. Trabecular Bone Score to Enhance Fracture Risk Prediction and Treatment Strategies in Osteoporosis
    Guillaume Gatineau, Didier Hans, Karen Hind
    Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology.2024; 28(05): 539.     CrossRef
  • 5. Update on the clinical use of trabecular bone score (TBS) in the management of osteoporosis: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Disease
    Enisa Shevroja, Jean-Yves Reginster, Olivier Lamy, Nasser Al-Daghri, Manju Chandran, Anne-Laurence Demoux-Baiada, Lynn Kohlmeier, Marie-Paule Lecart, Daniel Messina, Bruno Muzzi Camargos, Juraj Payer, Sansin Tuzun, Nicola Veronese, Cyrus Cooper, Eugene V.
    Osteoporosis International.2023; 34(9): 1501.     CrossRef
  • 6. Trabecular Bone Score and Central Quantitative Computed Tomography for the Prediction of Vertebral Fragility Fractures in Postmenopausal Women
    Soree Ryang, Yun Kyung Jeon, Tae Sik Goh, In-Joo Kim, Keunyoung Kim
    Journal of Bone Metabolism.2023; 30(1): 77.     CrossRef
  • 7. Bone Mineral Density and Trabecular Bone Score Changes throughout Menopause in Women with HIV
    Jovana Milic, Stefano Renzetti, Denise Morini, Federico Motta, Federica Carli, Marianna Menozzi, Gianluca Cuomo, Giuseppe Mancini, Mattia Simion, Federico Romani, Anna Spadoni, Irene Baldisserotto, Nicole Barp, Chiara Diazzi, Chiara Mussi, Cristina Mussin
    Viruses.2023; 15(12): 2375.     CrossRef
  • 8. Effect of tamoxifen with or without gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog on DXA values in women with breast cancer
    Eun Heui Kim, Yun Kyung Jeon, Kyoungjune Pak, Taewoo Kang, Kyung-Eun Kim, Seong-Jang Kim, In-Joo Kim, Keunyoung Kim
    Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 9. Application of the Trabecular Bone Score in Clinical Practice
    Sung Hye Kong, Namki Hong, Jin-Woo Kim, Deog Yoon Kim, Jung Hee Kim
    Journal of Bone Metabolism.2021; 28(2): 101.     CrossRef
  • 10. Discriminative ability of trabecular bone score over bone mineral density for vertebral and fragility fracture in patients treated with long‐term and low‐dose glucocorticoid
    Kyung‐Ann Lee, JongSun Kim, Hyun‐joo Kim, Hyun‐Sook Kim
    International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases.2021; 24(8): 1053.     CrossRef
  • 11. A High-Intensity Exercise Intervention Improves Older Women Lumbar Spine and Distal Tibia Bone Microstructure and Function: A 20-Week Randomized Controlled Trial
    Joao Pedro Pinho, Arturo Forner-Cordero, Rosa Maria Rodrigues Pereira, Arnaldo Jose Hernandez, Egidio Lima Dorea, Bruno Mezencio, Liliam Takayama, Jackeline Couto Alvarenga, Julio Cerca Serrao, Alberto Carlos Amadio
    IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine.2020; 8: 1.     CrossRef
  • 12. Contributions of Clinical and Technical Factors to Longitudinal Change in Trabecular Bone Score and Bone Density: A Registry-Based Individual-Level Analysis
    William D Leslie, Heenam Goel, Neil Binkley, Eugene V McCloskey, Didier Hans
    Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.2020; 38(4): 512.     CrossRef
  • 13. Longitudinal changes in bone mineral density and trabecular bone score following yearly zoledronic acid infusion in postmenopausal osteoporosis—a retrospective-prospective study from southern India
    Basavaraj Sooragonda, Kripa Elizabeth Cherian, Felix K. Jebasingh, Riddhi Dasgupta, Hesarghatta S. Asha, Nitin Kapoor, Nihal Thomas, Thomas V. Paul
    Archives of Osteoporosis.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 14. Trapidil induces osteogenesis by upregulating the signaling of bone morphogenetic proteins
    Bongjun Kim, Jong-Ho Lee, Won Jong Jin, Hong-Hee Kim, Hyunil Ha, Zang Hee Lee
    Cellular Signalling.2018; 49: 68.     CrossRef
  • 15. The effect of metformin versus placebo in combination with insulin analogues on bone mineral density and trabecular bone score in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized placebo-controlled trial
    A. K. Nordklint, T. P. Almdal, P. Vestergaard, L. Lundby-Christensen, T. W. Boesgaard, L. Breum, B. Gade-Rasmussen, S. B. Sneppen, C. Gluud, B. Hemmingsen, T. Jensen, T. Krarup, S. Madsbad, E. R. Mathiesen, H. Perrild, L. Tarnow, B. Thorsteinsson, H. Vest
    Osteoporosis International.2018; 29(11): 2517.     CrossRef
  • 6,061 View
  • 24 Download
  • Crossref
Measurement Uncertainty in Spine Bone Mineral Density by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry
Ae-Ja Park, Jun-Il Yoo, Jee-Hye Choi, Kyun Shik Chae, Chang Geun Kim, Dal Sik Kim
J Bone Metab 2017;24(2):105-109.
Published online May 31, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2017.24.2.105
Background

The purpose of this study was to calculate the measurement uncertainty of the process of bone mineral density (BMD) analysis using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry with traceability.

Methods

Between March 2015 and October 2016, among healthy participants in their 20s and 30s, the study included those who had not taken calcium, vitamin D supplements and steroids and were without a history of osteoporosis, osteopenia and diseases related to osteoporosis. Relational expression of the model was established based on Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurements and Eurachem and the uncertainty from each factor was evaluated.

Results

The combined standard uncertainty was 0.015, while the expanded uncertainty was 0.0298. The factor-specific standard uncertainties that occurred in the process of measuring BMD were 0.72% for the calibration curve, 0.9% for the internal quality control (IQC) using Aluminum Spine Phantom, 0.58% for European Spine Phantom (ESP), and 0.9% for the inspector precision (IP).

Conclusions

The combined standard uncertainty of the spine BMD corrected with ESP was 0.015 when measured at one time and targeting one participant. The uncertainties of the accuracy of the IQC and the IP were higher than that of the other factors. Therefore, there will be a need for establishment of protocols to lower these uncertainties.

  • 6,003 View
  • 18 Download
Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries
Ae Ja Park, Jee-Hye Choi, Hyun Kang, Ki Jeong Park, Ha Young Kim, Seo Hwa Kim, Deog-Yoon Kim, Seung-Hwan Park, Yong-Chan Ha
J Bone Metab 2015;22(2):45-49.
Published online May 31, 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2015.22.2.45
Background

Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is known to standard equipment for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Different results of BMD measurement using a number of different types of devices are difficult to use clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate discrepancy and standardizations of DXA devices from three manufactures using a European Spine Phantom (ESP).

Methods

We calculated the accuracy and precision of 36 DXA devices from three manufacturers (10 Hologic, 16 Lunar, and 10 Osteosys) using a ESP (semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each equipment without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing BMD (g/cm2) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd).

Results

Lunar devices were, on average, 22%, 8.3%, and 5% overestimation for low (L1) BMD values, medium (L2), and high (L3) BMD values. Hologic devices were, on average, 6% overestimation for L1 BMD, and 5% and 6.2% underestimation for L2 and L3 BMD values. Osteosys devices was, on average, 12.7% (0.063 g/cm2), 6.3% (0.062 g/cm2), and 5% (0.075 g/cm2) underestimation for L1, L2, and L3, respectively. The mean CVsd for L1-L3 BMD were 0.01%, 0.78%, and 2.46% for Lunar, Hologic, and Osteosys devices respectively.

Conclusions

The BMD comparison in this study demonstrates that BMD result of three different devices are significant different between three devices. Differences of BMD between three devices are necessary to BMD standardization.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • 1. An Anatomically Guided and Optimization-Refined Radiomics Framework for Opportunistic Osteoporosis Assessment from Lumbar Spine MRI
    Akaworn Mahatthanatrakul, Thitiphat Klinsuwan, Rabian Wangkeeree, Artit Laoruengthana
    Diagnostics.2026; 16(14): 2241.     CrossRef
  • 2. Amino Acid Complexed Minerals Zn, Mn, and Cu Improve Bone and Intestinal Characteristics in Laying Pullets
    Marcos José Batista dos Santos, Carlos Bôa-Viagem Rabello, Andresa de Gusmão Faria, Waleska R. L. Medeiros-Ventura, Rogério Ventura Silva Junior, Heraldo Bezerra de Oliveira, Fabiano Sellos Costa, Mércia Rodrigues Barros, Alba K. Fireman
    Biological Trace Element Research.2025; 204(5): 3037.     CrossRef
  • 3. The Impact of Phytase and Different Levels of Supplemental Amino Acid Complexed Minerals in Diets of Older Laying Hens
    Waleska Medeiros-Ventura, Carlos Rabello, Marcos Santos, Mércia Barros, Rogério Silva Junior, Heraldo Oliveira, Fabiano Costa, Andresa Faria, Alba Fireman
    Animals.2023; 13(23): 3709.     CrossRef
  • 4. Complexed amino acid minerals vs. bis-glycinate bound minerals: Impact on the performance of old laying hens
    Marcos J.B. Santos, Maria C.M.M. Ludke, Leandro M. Silva, Carlos B.V. Rabello, Mércia R. Barros, Fabiano S. Costa, Clariane S. Santos, Jamille S.S. Wanderley
    Animal Nutrition.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 5. Accuracy, Linearity and Precision of Spine QCT vBMD Phantom Measurements for Different Brands of CT Scanner: A Multicentre Study
    Yingwei Zhao, Kai Li, Yangyang Duanmu, Ling Wang, Xiaoming Xu, Yong Zhang, Jing Tang, Yujing Zhang, Zhenlin Li, Karen Hind, Glen M. Blake, Xiaoguang Cheng
    Journal of Clinical Densitometry.2022; 25(1): 34.     CrossRef
  • 6. Different Models of Dual-Energy Bone DXA Scanners: A Comparative Study
    Alexey V. Petraikin, Ekaterina S. Akhmad, Dmitry S. Semenov, Zlata R. Artyukova, Nikita D. Kudryavtsev, Fedor A. Petriaikin, Ludmila A. Nizovtsova
    Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia.2022; 28(2): 48.     CrossRef
  • 7. Reply to comments on “Effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on bone mineral density: a systematic review and meta-analysis”
    C. Zhou
    Osteoporosis International.2022; 33(12): 2657.     CrossRef
  • 8. Cross-Calibration of Bone Mineral Densities and Body Composition between GE Lunar Prodigy and Osteosys Primus
    Yong-Chan Ha, Jun-Il Yoo
    Journal of Bone Metabolism.2021; 28(3): 215.     CrossRef
  • 9. To help practitioner: monitoring treatment of osteoporosis in study of bone mineral density on different axial densitometers
    O. A. Nikitinskaya, N. V. Toroptsova
    Medical alphabet.2020; 2(37): 22.     CrossRef
  • 10. Whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry demonstrates better reliability than segmental body composition analysis in college-aged students
    Petr Kutáč, Václav Bunc, Martin Sigmund, Cherilyn N. McLester
    PLOS ONE.2019; 14(4): e0215599.     CrossRef
  • 11. Quantitative data standardization of X-ray based densitometry methods
    K A Sergunova, A V Petraikin, F A Petrjajkin, K S Akhmad, D S Semenov, N N Potrakhov
    Journal of Physics: Conference Series.2018; 967: 012014.     CrossRef
  • 12. Bone mineral density in healthy Syrian women measured by dual energyX-ray absorptiometry
    Mohamed Adel Bakir, Kholoud B Hammad, Khuzama M Habil
    Anthropological Review.2018; 81(1): 18.     CrossRef
  • 13. Measurement Uncertainty in Spine Bone Mineral Density by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry
    Ae-Ja Park, Jun-Il Yoo, Jee-Hye Choi, Kyun Shik Chae, Chang Geun Kim, Dal Sik Kim
    Journal of Bone Metabolism.2017; 24(2): 105.     CrossRef
  • 10,279 View
  • 30 Download
  • Crossref