Osteoporosis International

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 290–296 | Cite as

The accuracy of historical height loss for the detection of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women

  • K. SiminoskiEmail author
  • R. S. Warshawski
  • H. Jen
  • K. Lee
Original Article


Historical height loss (HHL) can be calculated as the difference between a patient’s tallest recalled height (TRH) and the current measured height (MH). We have examined the accuracy of HHL as a clinical test for the detection of prevalent vertebral fractures. Subjects were postmenopausal women aged 50 or older who had been referred for specialist assessment of osteoporosis risk ( n =323; average age 66.0±9.2 years; range 50–92 years). MH was determined using a wall-mounted stadiometer. The presence of prevalent vertebral fractures was assessed by radiographic morphometry, with fracture defined as a vertebral height ratio <0.8. The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for fracture was relatively flat until HHL >6.0 cm. With HHL from 6.1 to 8.0 cm, the LR+ was 2.8 [95% confidence interval (95%CI), 1.3, 6.0]. When HHL was >8.0 cm, the LR+ was 9.8 (95% CI, 3.0, 31.8). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the ability of HHL to detect fracture was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.59, 0.72). At HHL >6.0 cm, sensitivity was 30% (95% CI, 22, 37%), and specificity was 94% (95% CI, 90, 97%). The positive predictive value was relatively low across a range of theoretical prevalence, rising above 80% only at very high prevalence rates (>50%). In contrast, the negative predictive value was high at the prevalence rates seen in most clinical practice, and dropped below 80% only when the prevalence exceeded 25%. This study shows that HHL ≤6.0 cm rules out prevalent vertebral fracture with a high degree of accuracy; patients with HHL >6.0 cm should have spine radiographs to examine for the presence of vertebral fractures.


Anthropometry Osteoporosis Stadiometer Stature Vertebral fracture 


  1. 1.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuikj C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grados F, Roux C, de Vernejoul MC, Utard G, Sebert JL, Fardellone P (2001) Comparison of four morphometric definitions and a semiquantitative consensus reading for assessing prevalent vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 12:716–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kleerekoper M, Nelson DA, Peterson EL, Tilley BC (1992) Outcome variables in osteoporosis trials. Bone 13 [Suppl]:S29–S34Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spector TD, McCloskey EV, Doyle DV, Kanis JA (1993) Prevalence of vertebral fracture in women and the relationship with bone density and symptoms: the Chingford Study. J Bone Miner Res 8:817–822PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gunnes M, Lehmann EH, Mellstrom D, Johnell O (1996) The relationship between anthropometric measurements and fractures in women. Bone 19:407–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Culham EG, Jimenez HAI, King CE (1994) Thoracic kyphosis, rib mobility, and lung volumes in normal women and women with osteoporosis. Spine 19:1250–1255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang C, Ross PD, Lydick E, Davis JW, Wasnich RD (1996) Contributions of vertebral fractures to stature loss among elderly Japanese-American women in Hawaii. J Bone Miner Res 11:408–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siminoski K, Jiang G, Adachi JD, et al (2005) The accuracy of height loss during prospective monitoring for detection of incident vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 16:403–410Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359:1761–1767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ettinger B, Black DM, Nevitt MC, et al (1992) Contribution of vertebral deformities to chronic back pain and disability. J Bone Miner Res 7:449–456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ismail AA, Cooper C, Felsenberg D, et al (1999) Number and type of vertebral deformities: epidemiological characteristics and relation to back pain and height loss. Osteoporos Int 9:206–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaptoge S, Armbrecht G, Felsenberg D, et al (2004) When should the doctor order a spine X-ray? Identifying vertebral fractures for osteoporosis care: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 19:1982–1993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dargent-Molina P, Poitiers F, Breart G (2000) In elderly women weight is the best predictor of a very low bone mineral density: evidence from the EPIDOS study. Osteoporos Int 11:881–888Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisman J, Clapham S, Kehoe L (2004) Osteoporosis prevalence and levels of treatment in primary care: the Australian Bone Care Study. J Bone Miner Res 19:1969–1975PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Delmas PD, Genant HK, Crans GG, et al (2003) Severity of prevalent vertebral fractures and the risk of subsequent vertebral and nonvertebral fractures: results from the MORE trial. Bone 33:522–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kado DM, Duong T, Stone KL, et al (2003) Incident vertebral fractures and mortality in older women: a prospective study. Osteoporos Int 14:589–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, et al (2001) Risk of new fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285:320–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vogt TM, Ross PD, Palermo L, et al (2000) Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Vertebral fracture prevalence among women screened for the fracture intervention trial and a simple screening tool to screen for undiagnosed vertebral fractures. Mayo Clin Proc 75:888–896PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norton K, Whittingham N, Carter L, Kerr D, Gore C, Marfell-Jones M (1996) Measurement techniques in anthropometry, chapter 2. In: Norton K, Olds T (eds) Anthropometrica. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, Australia, pp 25–75Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gordon C, Chumlea WC, Roche AF (1991) Stature, recumbent length, and weight, chapter 1. In: Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R (eds) Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, Ill, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bland JM, Altman G (1996) Statistics notes: measurement error. Br Med J 313:744Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Versluis RG, Petri H, van de Ven CM, et al (1999) Usefulness of arm span and height comparison in detecting vertebral deformities in women. Osteoporos Int 9:129–133Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nores JM, Remy JM, Nenna AD (1990) The practical value of span measurements in osteoporosis. Br J Clin Pract 44:154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang XF, Duan Y, Henry M, Kin BT, Seeman M (2004) Body segment lengths and arm span in healthy men and women and patients with vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:43–48Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Green AD, Colon-Emeric CS, Basstian L, Drake MT, Lyles KW (2004) Does this woman have osteoporosis? JAMA 292:2890–2900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cline MG, Merdith KE, Boyer JT, Burrows B (1989) Decline of height with age in adults in a general population sample: estimating maximum height and distinguishing birth cohort effects from actual loss of stature with aging. Hum Biol 61:415–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chandler PJ, Bock RD (1991) Age changes in adult stature: trend estimation from mixed longitudinal data. Ann Human Biol 18:433–440Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Friedlaender JS, Costa PT, Bosse R, Ellis E, Rhoads JG, Stoudt HW (1977) Longitudinal physique changes among healthy white veterans at Boston. Hum Biol 49:541–558PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Leer EM, van Noord PA, Seidell JC (1992) Components of adult height and height loss. Secular trend and effects of aging in women in the DOM project. Ann Epidemiol 2:611–615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jassal SK, Barrett-Connor E, Edelstein SL (1995) Low bioavailable testosterone levels predict future height loss in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 10:650–654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Noppa H, Andersson M, Bengtsson C, Bruce A, Isaksson B (1980) Longitudinal studies of anthropometric data and body composition: the population study of women in Goteborg, Sweden. Am J Clin Nutr 33:155–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Voss LD, Bailey BJ (1994) Equipping the community to measure children’s height: the reliability of portable instruments. Arch Dis Child 70:469–471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Watt V, Pickering M, Wales JKH (1998) A comparison of ultrasonic and mechanical stadiometry. Arch Dis Child 78:269–270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Siminoski K, Ioannidis G, Adachi JD, et al. (2004) Detection of prevalent vertebral fractures using historical height loss: comparison of different height measurement methods. J Bone Miner Res 19 [Suppl 1]:S161Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hodgson SF, Watts NB, Bilezikian JP, et al. (2003) American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the prevention and management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Pract 9:544–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brown JP, Josse RG, for the Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada (2002) Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. Can Med Assoc J [Suppl] 167:S1–S34Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Siminoski K, Warshawski RS, Jen H, Lee K (2003) Accuracy of physical examination using the rib-pelvis distance for detection of lumbar vertebral fractures. Am J Med 115:233–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Siminoski
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • R. S. Warshawski
    • 1
  • H. Jen
    • 1
  • K. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Diagnostic ImagingUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations