Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures

D Marshall, O Johnell, H Wedel, D Marshall, O Johnell, H Wedel

Abstract

Objective: To determine the ability of measurements of bone density in women to predict later fractures.

Design: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies published between 1985 and end of 1994 with a baseline measurement of bone density in women and subsequent follow up for fractures. For comparative purposes, we also reviewed case control studies of hip fractures published between 1990 and 1994.

Subjects: Eleven separate study populations with about 90,000 person years of observation time and over 2000 fractures.

Main outcome measures: Relative risk of fracture for a decrease in bone mineral density of one standard deviation below age adjusted mean.

Results: All measuring sites had similar predictive abilities (relative risk 1.5 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 1.6)) for decrease in bone mineral density except for measurement at spine for predicting vertebral fractures (relative risk 2.3 (1.9 to 2.8)) and measurement at hip for hip fractures (2.6 (2.0 to 3.5)). These results are in accordance with results of case-control studies. Predictive ability of decrease in bone mass was roughly similar to (or, for hip or spine measurements, better than) that of a 1 SD increase in blood pressure for stroke and better than a 1 SD increase in serum cholesterol concentration for cardiovascular disease.

Conclusions: Measurements of bone mineral density can predict fracture risk but cannot identify individuals who will have a fracture. We do not recommend a programme of screening menopausal women for osteoporosis by measuring bone density.

References

    1. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Oct;30(10):1603-11
    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1984 May;119(5):751-64
    1. Osteoporos Int. 1994 Nov;4(6):325-31
    1. BMJ. 1995 Feb 18;310(6977):454-6
    1. Am J Med. 1985 Mar;78(3):487-94
    1. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Mar;(216):262-9
    1. Med J Aust. 1987 Mar 16;146(6):300-4
    1. J Clin Invest. 1988 Jun;81(6):1804-9
    1. J Nucl Med. 1989 Jul;30(7):1166-71
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Sep 1;111(5):355-61
    1. JAMA. 1990 Feb 2;263(5):665-8
    1. J Orthop Res. 1990 Mar;8(2):220-6
    1. Calcif Tissue Int. 1990 Mar;46(3):149-61
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1990 Apr 1;112(7):516-28
    1. BMJ. 1990 Sep 29;301(6753):638-41
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Jun 1;114(11):919-23
    1. BMJ. 1991 Aug 24;303(6800):453-9
    1. Calcif Tissue Int. 1991 Aug;49(2):90-4
    1. Orthop Rev. 1991 Aug;20(8):690-8
    1. Calcif Tissue Int. 1991 Sep;49(3):161-3
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Dec 1;115(11):837-42
    1. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1992 Feb;74(2):351-6
    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1992 Mar 1;135(5):477-89
    1. Osteoporos Int. 1991 Jun;1(3):147-54
    1. J Bone Miner Res. 1992 Jul;7(7):755-9
    1. Kobe J Med Sci. 1992 Feb;38(1):21-36
    1. J Bone Miner Res. 1992 Jun;7(6):633-8
    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1992 Aug 15;136(4):428-40
    1. Osteoporos Int. 1992 Nov;2(6):285-9
    1. Osteoporos Int. 1992 Nov;2(6):290-7
    1. Lancet. 1993 Jan 9;341(8837):72-5
    1. Calcif Tissue Int. 1993 May;52(5):348-53
    1. Bone. 1993 Mar-Apr;14(2):161-5
    1. BMJ. 1993 Oct 30;307(6912):1111-5
    1. J Bone Miner Res. 1993 Oct;8(10):1227-33
    1. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993;2(2):173-92
    1. JAMA. 1994 Jan 12;271(2):128-33
    1. Osteoporos Int. 1994 May;4(3):144-8

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner