Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: 843

  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 7:390–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 9:15–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Adams JE (2009) Quantitative computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 71:415–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stewart A, Reid DM (2002) Quantitative ultrasound in osteoporosis. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 6:229–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 11:163–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 11:123–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 13:346–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng S, Hans D, Genant HK. (1999) Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound: Gel-coupled. 125–44

  11. Njeh CF, Black DM. (1999) Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound: water-coupled. 109–24

  12. Nicholson PH, Bouxsein ML (2002) Effect of temperature on ultrasonic properties of the calcaneus in situ. Osteoporos Int 13:888–892

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 5:335–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 21:1126–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Durosier C, Hans D, Krieg MA, Schott AM (2006) Prediction and discrimination of osteoporotic hip fracture in postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom 9:475–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 23:1045–1051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 35:357–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 21:1457–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 68:391–396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 363:197–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:413–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 1:219–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 15:190–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 61:196–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 16:216–221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 8:386–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 16:2107–2112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 18:629–639

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 18:771–777

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 18:603–610

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 157:629–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 13:89–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 17:2222–2230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 24:1319–1325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 63:380–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 12:185–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 19:782–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 11:1051–1062

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 10:243–249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 54:466–469

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 5:130–135

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 45:180–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 12:1463–1470

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 12:438–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 21:1227–1236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 16:1065–1070

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    A. Moayyeri

  2. Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King’s College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK

    A. Moayyeri

  3. Manchester Royal Infirmary, Central Manchester Universities Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK

    J. E. Adams

  4. Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Epidemiology and Community Health, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA

    R. A. Adler

  5. Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland

    M.-A. Krieg

  6. Department of Bone and Joint, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland

    D. Hans

  7. Department of Medicine, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK

    J. Compston

  8. New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA

    E. M. Lewiecki

Authors
  1. A. Moayyeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. E. Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. A. Adler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M.-A. Krieg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Hans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Compston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. E. M. Lewiecki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. M. Lewiecki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moayyeri, A., Adams, J.E., Adler, R.A. et al. Quantitative ultrasound of the heel and fracture risk assessment: an updated meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 23, 143–153 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1817-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1817-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation