Skip to main content
Log in

Bone mineral density-independent association of quantitative ultrasound measurements and fracture risk in women

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Osteoporotic fracture is considered to result from reduced bone strength and to be related to decreased bone mass and impaired bone architecture. Quantitative ultrasound measurements (QUS) of bone, that may reflect certain architectural aspects of bone, have been shown to be associated with fracture, but it is not clear whether the association is independent of bone mineral density (BMD). This study was designed to examine the contributions of cortical QUS and BMD measurements to the prediction of fracture risk in postmenopausal Caucasian women. Speed of sound (SOS) at the distal radius, tibia, and phalanx (Sunlight Omnisense) and BMD at the lumbar spine and femoral neck (GE Lunar) were measured in 549 women, aged 63.2 ± 12.3 years (mean ± SD; range, 49–88 years), including 77 fracture cases. Lower SOS at the distal radius, tibia, and phalanx, which were correlated with each other, were associated with increased risk of fracture. Independent predictors of fracture risk (in multivariate analysis) were distal radius SOS (OR per SD = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3–2.4), femoral neck BMD (OR per SD = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4–2.4), and age (OR per 5 years = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0–1.5). Approximately 30% of the women had distal radius SOS T-scores <−2.5; however, only 6.6% of women had both BMD and SOS T-scores <−2.5. Among the 77 fracture cases, only 14 (18.2%) had both BMD and QUS T-scores below −2.5. These data in postmenopausal women suggest that speed of sound at the distal radius was associated with fracture risk, independent of BMD and age. The combination of QUS and BMD measurements may improve the accuracy of identification of women who will sustain a fracture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hui SL, Slemenda CW, Johnston CC Jr (1989) Baseline measurement of bone mass predicts fracture in white women. Ann Intern Med 111:355–361

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nguyen T, Sambrook P, Kelly P, Jones G, Lord S, Freund J, Eisman J (1993) Prediction of osteoporotic fractures by postural instability and bone density. BMJ 307:1111–1115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 312:1254–1259

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaufman JJ, Einhorn TA (1993) Ultrasound assessment of bone. J Bone Miner Res 8:517–525

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Turner CH, Peacock M, Timmerman L, Neal JM, Johnston CC (1995) Calcaneal ultrasonic mneasurements discriminate hip fracture independent of bone mass. Osteoporos Int 5:130–135

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schott AM, Weill-Engerer S, Hans D, Duboeuf F, Delmas PD, Meunier PJ (1995) Ultrasound discriminates patients with hip fracture equally well as dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and independent of bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res 10:243–249

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Glüer CC, Cummings SR, Bauer DC, Stone K, Pressman A, Mathur A, Genant HK (1996) Osteoporosis: association of recent fractures with quantitative ultrasound findings. Radiology 199:725–732

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bauer DC, Gluer CC, Cauley JA et al (1997) Broadband ultrasound attenuation predicts fractures strongly and independently of densitometry in older women: a prospective study. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Arch Intern Med 157:629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hans D, Dargent MP, Schott AM et al (1996) Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet 348(9026):511–514

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Frost ML, Blake GM, Fogelman I (2000) Does quantitative ultrasound enhance precision and discrimination? Osteoporos Int 11:425–433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nguyen TV, Center JR, Eisman JA (2000) Osteoporosis in elderly men and women: effects of dietary calcium, physical activity and body mass index. J Bone Miner Res 15:322–331

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nguyen TV, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA (1997) Source of variability in bone density: implication for study design and analysis. J Bone Miner Res 12:124–135

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hans D, Srivastav SK, Singal C, Barkmann R, Njeh CF, Kantorovich E, Gluer 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(4):644–651

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kass RE, Raftery AC (1995) Bayes factors. JASA 90:773–795

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359(9321):1929–1936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kleerekoper M, Villaneuva AR, Stanciu J, Rao DS, Parfit AM (1985) The role of three dimensional trabecular microstructure in the pathogenesis of vertebral compression fracture. Calcif Tissue Int 37:594–597

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Langton CM, Palmer SB, Porter RW (1984) The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. Eng Med 13:89–91

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Langton CM, Evans GP (1991) Dependence of ultrasonic velocity and attenuation on the material properties of cancellous bone. Osteoporos Int 1:194

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gregg EW, Kriska AM, Salamone LM, Roberts MM, Anderson SJ, Ferrell RE, Kuller LH, Cauley JA (1997) The epidemiology of quantitative ultrasound: a review of the relationships with bone mass, osteoporosis and fracture risk. Osteoporos Int 7:89–99

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pluijm SMF, Graafmans WC, Bouter LM, Lips P (1999) Ultrasound measurements for the prediction of osteoporotic fractures in elderly people. Osteoporos Int 9:550–556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ross P, Huang C, Davis J, Imose K, Yates J, Vogel J, Wasnich R (1995) Predicting vertebral deformity using bone densitometry at various skeletal sites and calcaneus ultrasound. Bone 16:325–332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Graafmans WC, Van Lingen A, Ooms ME, Bezemer PD, Lips P (1996) Ultrasound measurements in the calcaneus: precision and its relation with bone mineral density of the heel, hip, and lumbar spine. Bone. 19:97–100

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the expert assistance of Janet Watters and Donna Reeves in the interview, data collection, and bone densitometry; and the invaluable help of the staff of Dubbo Base Hospital. This work has been supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. We also thank the generous support of Sunlight Ultrasound Technologies, the maker of the Omnisense ultrasound instrument, for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuan V. Nguyen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nguyen, T.V., Center, J.R. & Eisman, J.A. Bone mineral density-independent association of quantitative ultrasound measurements and fracture risk in women. Osteoporos Int 15, 942–947 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1717-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1717-z

Keywords

Navigation