Osteoporosis International

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 143–153 | Cite as

Quantitative ultrasound of the heel and fracture risk assessment: an updated meta-analysis

  • A. Moayyeri
  • J. E. Adams
  • R. A. Adler
  • M.-A. Krieg
  • D. Hans
  • J. Compston
  • E. M. Lewiecki
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Meta-analysis of prospective studies shows that quantitative ultrasound of the heel using validated devices predicts risk of different types of fracture with similar performance across different devices and in elderly men and women. These predictions are independent of the risk estimates from hip DXA measures.

Introduction

Clinical utilisation of heel quantitative ultrasound (QUS) depends on its power to predict clinical fractures. This is particularly important in settings that have no access to DXA-derived bone density measurements. We aimed to assess the predictive power of heel QUS for fractures using a meta-analysis approach.

Methods

We conducted an inverse variance random effects meta-analysis of prospective studies with heel QUS measures at baseline and fracture outcomes in their follow-up. Relative risks (RR) per standard deviation (SD) of different QUS parameters (broadband ultrasound attenuation [BUA], speed of sound [SOS], stiffness index [SI], and quantitative ultrasound index [QUI]) for various fracture outcomes (hip, vertebral, any clinical, any osteoporotic and major osteoporotic fractures) were reported based on study questions.

Results

Twenty-one studies including 55,164 women and 13,742 men were included in the meta-analysis with a total follow-up of 279,124 person-years. All four QUS parameters were associated with risk of different fracture. For instance, RR of hip fracture for 1 SD decrease of BUA was 1.69 (95% CI 1.43–2.00), SOS was 1.96 (95% CI 1.64–2.34), SI was 2.26 (95%CI 1.71–2.99) and QUI was 1.99 (95% CI 1.49–2.67). There was marked heterogeneity among studies on hip and any clinical fractures but no evidence of publication bias amongst them. Validated devices from different manufacturers predicted fracture risks with similar performance (meta-regression p values > 0.05 for difference of devices). QUS measures predicted fracture with a similar performance in men and women. Meta-analysis of studies with QUS measures adjusted for hip BMD showed a significant and independent association with fracture risk (RR/SD for BUA = 1.34 [95%CI 1.22–1.49]).

Conclusions

This study confirms that heel QUS, using validated devices, predicts risk of different fracture outcomes in elderly men and women. Further research is needed for more widespread utilisation of the heel QUS in clinical settings across the world.

Keywords

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry Meta-analysis Osteoporosis Quantitative ultrasound Risk assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the organisers of the ISCD-IOF PDC for their support in making this study possible: Didier Hans (co-chair), Cyrus Cooper (co-chair), Sanford Baim, Bess Dawson-Hughes, John A Kanis, William D Leslie, Marjorie M Luckey, Rene Rizzoli, Catalina Poiana, John P Bilezekian (moderator), Socrates E Papapoulos (moderator).

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: 843Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis JA, Delmas P, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Torgerson D (1997) Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease. Osteoporos Int 7:390–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hans D, Downs RW Jr, Duboeuf F, Greenspan S, Jankowski LG, Kiebzak GM, Petak SM (2006) Skeletal sites for osteoporosis diagnosis: the 2005 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom 9:15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adams JE (2009) Quantitative computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 71:415–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stewart A, Reid DM (2002) Quantitative ultrasound in osteoporosis. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 6:229–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krieg MA, Barkmann R, Gonnelli S, Stewart A, Bauer DC, Del Rio BL, Kaufman JJ, Lorenc R, Miller PD, Olszynski WP, Poiana C, Schott AM, Lewiecki EM, Hans D (2008) Quantitative ultrasound in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom 11:163–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engelke K, Adams JE, Armbrecht G, Augat P, Bogado CE, Bouxsein ML, Felsenberg D, Ito M, Prevrhal S, Hans DB, Lewiecki EM (2008) Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography and peripheral quantitative computed tomography in the management of osteoporosis in adults: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom 11:123–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kung AW, Wu CH, Itabashi A, Lee JK, Park HM, Zhao Y, Chan WP, Kendler DL, Leib ES, Lewiecki EM, Bilezikian JP, Baim S (2010) International society for clinical densitometry official positions: Asia-pacific region consensus. J Clin Densitom 13:346–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Langton CM, Palmer SB, Porter RW (1984) The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. Eng Med 13:89–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng S, Hans D, Genant HK. (1999) Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound: Gel-coupled. 125–44Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Njeh CF, Black DM. (1999) Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound: water-coupled. 109–24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicholson PH, Bouxsein ML (2002) Effect of temperature on ultrasonic properties of the calcaneus in situ. Osteoporos Int 13:888–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krieg MA, Cornuz J, Hartl F, Kraenzlin M, Tyndall A, Hauselmann HJ, Lippuner K, Rizzoli R, Buche D, Theiler R, Dambacher MA, Neff M, Pancaldi P, Tanzi F, Wimpfheimer K, Burckhardt P (2002) Quality controls for two heel bone ultrasounds used in the Swiss Evaluation of the Methods of Measurement of Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Study. J Clin Densitom 5:335–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marin F, Gonzalez-Macias J, Diez-Perez A, Palma S, Delgado-Rodriguez M (2006) Relationship between bone quantitative ultrasound and fractures: a meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res 21:1126–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 312:1254–1259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Durosier C, Hans D, Krieg MA, Schott AM (2006) Prediction and discrimination of osteoporotic hip fracture in postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom 9:475–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hans D, Durosier C, Kanis JA, Johansson H, Schott-Pethelaz AM, Krieg MA (2008) Assessment of the 10-year probability of osteoporotic hip fracture combining clinical risk factors and heel bone ultrasound: the EPISEM prospective cohort of 12,958 elderly women. J Bone Miner Res 23:1045–1051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hans D, Schott AM, Duboeuf F, Durosier C, Meunier PJ (2004) Does follow-up duration influence the ultrasound and DXA prediction of hip fracture? The EPIDOS prospective study. Bone 35:357–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krieg MA, Cornuz J, Ruffieux C, Van MG, Buche D, Dambacher MA, Hans D, Hartl F, Hauselmann HJ, Kraenzlin M, Lippuner K, Neff M, Pancaldi P, Rizzoli R, Tanzi F, Theiler R, Tyndall A, Wimpfheimer C, Burckhardt P (2006) Prediction of hip fracture risk by quantitative ultrasound in more than 7000 Swiss women > or =70 years of age: comparison of three technologically different bone ultrasound devices in the SEMOF study. J Bone Miner Res 21:1457–1463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hollaender R, Hartl F, Krieg MA, Tyndall A, Geuckel C, Buitrago-Tellez C, Manghani M, Kraenzlin M, Theiler R, Hans D (2009) Prospective evaluation of risk of vertebral fractures using quantitative ultrasound measurements and bone mineral density in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women: results of the Basel Osteoporosis Study. Ann Rheum Dis 68:391–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 363:197–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stewart A, Kumar V, Reid DM (2006) Long-term fracture prediction by DXA and QUS: a 10-year prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 21:413–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thompson PW, Taylor J, Oliver R, Fisher A (1998) Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of the heel predicts wrist and osteoporosis-related fractures in women age 45–75 years. J Clin Densitom 1:219–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huopio J, Kroger H, Honkanen R, Jurvelin J, Saarikoski S, Alhava E (2004) Calcaneal ultrasound predicts early postmenopausal fractures as well as axial BMD. A prospective study of 422 women. Osteoporos Int 15:190–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pinheiro MM, Castro CM, Szejnfeld VL (2006) Low femoral bone mineral density and quantitative ultrasound are risk factors for new osteoporotic fracture and total and cardiovascular mortality: a 5-year population-based study of Brazilian elderly women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 61:196–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Devine A, Dick IM, Dhaliwal SS, Naheed R, Beilby J, Prince RL (2005) Prediction of incident osteoporotic fractures in elderly women using the free estradiol index. Osteoporos Int 16:216–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gluer MG, Minne HW, Gluer CC, Lazarescu AD, Pfeifer M, Perschel FH, Fitzner R, Pollahne W, Schlotthauer T, Pospeschill M (2005) Prospective identification of postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high vertebral fracture risk by radiography, bone densitometry, quantitative ultrasound, and laboratory findings: results from the PIOS study. J Clin Densitom 8:386–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fujiwara S, Sone T, Yamazaki K, Yoshimura N, Nakatsuka K, Masunari N, Fujita S, Kushida K, Fukunaga M (2005) Heel bone ultrasound predicts non-spine fracture in Japanese men and women. Osteoporos Int 16:2107–2112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diez-Perez A, Gonzalez-Macias J, Marin F, Abizanda M, Alvarez R, Gimeno A, Pegenaute E, Vila J (2007) Prediction of absolute risk of non-spinal fractures using clinical risk factors and heel quantitative ultrasound. Osteoporos Int 18:629–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bauer DC, Ewing SK, Cauley JA, Ensrud KE, Cummings SR, Orwoll ES (2007) Quantitative ultrasound predicts hip and non-spine fracture in men: the MrOS study. Osteoporos Int 18:771–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sambrook PN, Cameron ID, Chen JS, Cumming RG, Lord SR, March LM, Schwarz J, Seibel MJ, Simpson JM (2007) Influence of fall related factors and bone strength on fracture risk in the frail elderly. Osteoporos Int 18:603–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bauer DC, Gluer CC, Cauley JA, Vogt TM, Ensrud KE, Genant HK, Black DM (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 157:629–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McGrother CW, Donaldson MM, Clayton D, Abrams KR, Clarke M (2002) Evaluation of a hip fracture risk score for assessing elderly women: the Melton Osteoporotic Fracture (MOF) study. Osteoporos Int 13:89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Miller PD, Siris ES, Barrett-Connor E, Faulkner KG, Wehren LE, Abbott TA, Chen YT, Berger ML, Santora AC, Sherwood LM (2002) Prediction of fracture risk in postmenopausal white women with peripheral bone densitometry: evidence from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17:2222–2230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pluijm SM, Graafmans WC, Bouter LM, Lips P (1999) Ultrasound measurements for the prediction of osteoporotic fractures in elderly people. Osteoporos Int 9:550–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moayyeri A, Kaptoge S, Dalzell N, Bingham S, Luben RN, Wareham NJ, Reeve J, Khaw KT (2009) Is QUS or DXA better for predicting the 10-year absolute risk of fracture? J Bone Miner Res 24:1319–1325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huang C, Ross PD, Yates AJ, Walker RE, Imose K, Emi K, Wasnich RD (1998) Prediction of fracture risk by radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound: a prospective study. Calcif Tissue Int 63:380–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ekman A, Michaelsson K, Petren-Mallmin M, Ljunghall S, Mallmin H (2001) DXA of the hip and heel ultrasound but not densitometry of the fingers can discriminate female hip fracture patients from controls: a comparison between four different methods. Osteoporos Int 12:185–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gluer CC, Eastell R, Reid DM, Felsenberg D, Roux C, Barkmann R, Timm W, Blenk T, Armbrecht G, Stewart A, Clowes J, Thomasius FE, Kolta S (2004) Association of five quantitative ultrasound devices and bone densitometry with osteoporotic vertebral fractures in a population-based sample: the OPUS Study. J Bone Miner Res 19:782–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Njeh CF, Hans D, Li J, Fan B, Fuerst T, He YQ, Tsuda-Futami E, Lu Y, Wu CY, Genant HK (2000) Comparison of six calcaneal quantitative ultrasound devices: precision and hip fracture discrimination. Osteoporos Int 11:1051–1062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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 independently of bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res 10:243–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stewart A, Reid DM, Porter RW (1994) Broadband ultrasound attenuation and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in patients with hip fractures: which technique discriminates fracture risk. Calcif Tissue Int 54:466–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Turner CH, Peacock M, Timmerman L, Neal JM, Johnson CC Jr (1995) Calcaneal ultrasonic measurements discriminate hip fracture independently of bone mass. Osteoporos Int 5:130–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moayyeri A, Kaptoge S, Dalzell N, Luben RN, Wareham NJ, Bingham S, Reeve J, Khaw KT (2009) The effect of including quantitative heel ultrasound in models for estimation of 10-year absolute risk of fracture. Bone 45:180–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hui SL, Gao S, Zhou XH, Johnston CC Jr, Lu Y, Gluer CC, Grampp S, Genant H (1997) Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments. J Bone Miner Res 12:1463–1470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lu Y, Fuerst T, Hui S, Genant HK (2001) Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and Ward’s triangle. Osteoporos Int 12:438–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fan B, Lu Y, Genant H, Fuerst T, Shepherd J (2010) Does standardized BMD still remove differences between Hologic and GE-Lunar state-of-the-art DXA systems? Osteoporos Int 21:1227–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, De Laet C, de Terlizzi F (2005) Ten-year probabilities of clinical vertebral fractures according to phalangeal quantitative ultrasonography. Osteoporos Int 16:1065–1070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Moayyeri
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. E. Adams
    • 3
  • R. A. Adler
    • 4
  • M.-A. Krieg
    • 5
  • D. Hans
    • 6
  • J. Compston
    • 7
  • E. M. Lewiecki
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Twin Research and Genetic EpidemiologyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Manchester Royal InfirmaryCentral Manchester Universities Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
  4. 4.Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Epidemiology and Community HealthVirginia Commonwealth University School of MedicineRichmondUSA
  5. 5.Lausanne University HospitalLausanneSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Bone and JointLausanne University HospitalLausanneSwitzerland
  7. 7.Department of MedicineAddenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustCambridgeUK
  8. 8.New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis CenterAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations