Advertisement

Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 835–839 | Cite as

High prevalence of undiagnosed vertebral fractures in patients suffering from hip fracture at their hospital admission: weak concordance among observers

  • Manuel Sosa
  • Pedro Saavedra
  • María-Jesús Gómez-de-Tejada
  • María-del-Carmen Navarro
  • Esteban Jódar
  • Esther García
  • Rafael Fuentes
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Vertebral fracture is often underdiagnosed. Patients with hip fracture may suffer from vertebral fracture without knowing it. The diagnosis of vertebral fracture is sometimes difficult because there is no consensus regarding the definition of osteoporotic vertebral fracture, and several indexes may be used to diagnose it and the concordance between several observers may not be optimal.

Objective

To study the concordance in the diagnosis of vertebral fracture done by three different doctors: an orthopedic surgeon, a radiologist, and a bone mineral metabolism expert.

Methods

A lateral thoracic-lumbar spine X-Ray was performed in 177 patients suffering from hip fracture to assess the presence or absence of vertebral fractures. Three different observers applied Genant’s criteria for it. Concordance between observers was measured using Cohen’s kappa coefficient.

Results

Patients suffering from hip fractures have undiagnosed vertebral fractures in a range that varies from 41.8 to 47.5 % depending on the observer. The concordance in the diagnosis of vertebral fractures is quite low, ranging a Cohen’s kappa coefficient from 0.43 to 0.55 and a percentage of concordance varying from 64 to 72 %. The best concordance was found between observers 1 and 3.

Discussion

Depending on the observer who made the diagnosis, the prevalence of previously undiagnosed vertebral fractures in patients with HF varied widely. We selected three different observers to assess the possible differences in the diagnosis of vertebral fractures among these patients and using the same method (Genant’s semi-quantitative assessment), surprisingly, there was little concordance among the three of them.

Conclusion

Patients with hip fracture have high prevalence of undiagnosed vertebral fractures. The diagnosis of these fractures varies widely depending on the observers and the Cohen’s kappa coefficient and percentage of concordance is rather low.

Keywords

Vertebral fracture Hip fracture Prevalence Concordance Cohen’s kappa coefficient 

Notes

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

The study was carried out with approval of the Committee on Medical Trials of the Hospital University Insular of Gran Canaria and was conducted according to standards derived from the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

A written inform consent was obtained from every patient.

References

  1. 1.
    O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J et al (1996) The prevalence of vertebral deformity in european men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 11:1010–1018CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lambrinoudaki I, Flokatoula M, Armeni E et al (2015) Vertebral fracture prevalence among Greek healthy middle-aged postmenopausal women: association with demographics, anthropometric parameters, and bone mineral density. Spine J 15:86–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herrera A, Mateo J, Gil-Albarova J et al (2015) Prevalence of osteoporotic vertebral fracture in Spanish women over age 45. Maturitas 80:288–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jódar-Gimeno E (2010) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Mortality and morbidity. Rev Osteoporos Metab Miner 2:5–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 128:793–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D et al (1999) Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 353:878–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ratti C, Vulcano E, La Barbera G et al (2013) The incidence of fragility fractures in Italy. Aging Clin Exper Res 25(Suppl 1):S13–S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maggio D, Ruggiero C, Ercolani S et al (2010) A multi-dimensional questionnaire quantifying quality of life in elderly osteoporotic women: the Italian triple-Q osteoporosis study. Aging Clin Exper Res 22:330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C et al (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 20:557–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Luise C, Brimacombe M, Pedersen L et al (2008) Comorbidity and mortality following hip fracture: a population-based cohort study. Aging Clin Exper Res 20:412–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maggi S, Siviero P, Gonnelli S et al (2011) The burden of previous fractures in hip fracture patients. The Break Study. Aging Clin Exper Res 23:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalez-Rozas M, Perez-Castrillon JL, Gonzalez-Sagrado M et al (2012) Risk of mortality and predisposing factors after osteoporotic hip fracture: a 1-year follow-up study. Aging Clin Exper Res 24:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buckens CF, de Jong PA, Mali WP et al (2014) Prevalent vertebral fractures on chest CT: higher risk for future hip fracture. J Bone Miner Res 29:392–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sosa Henríquez M, Saavedra Santana P, y el grupo de trabajo en osteoporosis de la SEMI et al (2007) Prevalence of vertebral fractures in patients with hip fractures. Rev Clin Esp 207:464–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Watt J, Cox L, Crilly RG (2015) Distribution of vertebral fractures varies among patients according to hip fracture type. Osteoporos Int 26:885–890. doi: 10.1007/s00198-014-2887-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sosa M, Saavedra P, del Pino-Montes J et al (2005) Postmenopausal women with colles’ fracture have lower values of bone mineral density than controls as measured by quantitative ultrasound and densitometry. J Clin Densitom 8:430–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Navarro Mdel C, Saavedra P, Gomez-de-Tejada MJ et al (2012) Discriminative ability of heel quantitative ultrasound in postmenopausal women with prevalent vertebral fractures: application of optimal threshold cutoff values using classification and regression tree models. Calcif Tissue Int 91:114–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measur 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM et al (1992) Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res 7:221–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dennison E, Cooper C (2000) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Hor Res 54(Suppl 1):58–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferrar L, Jiang G, Adams J et al (2005) Identification of vertebral fractures: an update. Osteoporos Int 16:717–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grados F, Fechtenbaum J, Flipon E et al (2009) Radiographic methods for evaluating osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Joint Bone Spine 76:241–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sosa Henríquez M, Díaz Curiel M, Work Group in Osteoporosis of SEMI (GTO-SEMI) (2010) Prevalence of vertebral fractures in patients attending Internal Medicine outpatient clinics. Rev Osteoporos Metab Miner 2:9–13Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arboleya L, Diaz-Curiel M, Del Rio L et al (2010) Prevalence of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women with lumbar osteopenia using MorphoXpress (R) (OSTEOXPRESS Study). Aging Clin Exper Res 22:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kishimoto H (2011) Calcium Pros and Cons-Which method is useful for diagnosis of vertebral body fracture; radiograph or MRI? Vertebral radiograph is the useful method for diagnosis and monitoring of vertebral body fractures. Clin Calcium 21:127–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nakano T (2011) Calcium Pros and Cons-Which method is useful for diagnosis of vertebral body fracture; radiograph or MRI? X-ray examination is not enough for diagnosis of fresh vertebral body fractures. Clin Calcium 21:131–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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 3:138–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Minne HW, Leidig G, Wuster C et al (1988) A newly developed spine deformity index (SDI) to quantitate vertebral crush fractures in patients with osteoporosis. Bone Miner 3:335–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kleerekoper M, Nelson DA (1992) Vertebral fracture or vertebral deformity. Calcif Tissue Int 50:5–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP (1993) Revisable criteria for vertebral deformity. Osteoporos Int 3:265–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Melton LJ 3rd (1997) Epidemiology of spinal osteoporosis. Spine 22:2S–11SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Sosa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pedro Saavedra
    • 1
  • María-Jesús Gómez-de-Tejada
    • 3
  • María-del-Carmen Navarro
    • 1
  • Esteban Jódar
    • 4
  • Esther García
    • 1
  • Rafael Fuentes
    • 1
  1. 1.Investigation Group on Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Diseases, Instituto de Investigación BiomédicaUniversity of Las Palmas de Gran CanariaLas Palmas de Gran CanariaSpain
  2. 2.Bone Metabolic UnitHospital University InsularLas Palmas de Gran CanariaSpain
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of SevilleSevilleSpain
  4. 4.Service of Endocrinology, Hospital Quirón MadridEuropean University of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations