Vertebral Fracture Assessment by Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry: A Valid Tool to Detect Vertebral Fractures in Community-Dwelling Older Adults in a Population-Based Survey

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_DOMICIANO_Vertebral_Fracture_Assessment_by_Dual_X_Ray_Absorptiometry_2013.PDF (109.8 KB)
Citações na Scopus
39
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2013
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
WILEY-BLACKWELL
Autores
FIGUEIREDO, Camille P.
KUROISHI, Marcia E.
MENEZES, Paulo F.
Citação
ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH, v.65, n.5, p.809-815, 2013
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective Vertebral fractures are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Since 70% of vertebral fractures are clinically silent, a radiologic image of the spine has to be acquired for the diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of Vertebral Fracture Assessment (VFA) by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with radiographs to identify vertebral fractures in community-dwelling older adults. Methods A total of 429 older adults (ages 65 years) were enrolled in this cohort. VFA by DXA measurements were evaluated by 2 expert rheumatologists by consensus, and spine radiographs were analyzed according to the semiquantitative method by an expert radiologist. The correlation between VFA and spine radiographs to identify vertebral fractures was analyzed by kappa scores. Results The prevalence of vertebral fractures in VFA and radiographs was 29.1% and 29.4%, respectively (P = 0.99). The frequency of unavailable vertebrae was significantly lower in spinal radiographs than in VFA (0.9% and 5.6%, respectively; P < 0.001), particularly in T4T6. According to VFA, 5,013 vertebrae (96%) were identified as normal and 144 (2.7%) had grade 1, 58 (1.1%) had grade 2, and 12 (0.2%) had grade 3 fractures. The sensitivity of VFA was 72.9% and the specificity was 99.1% to identify vertebral fractures. The sensitivity increased to 92% and the specificity increased to 99.9% when excluding grade 1 deformities. A good correlation between VFA and radiographs ( = 0.74) was observed, and the exclusion of grade 1 resulted in even better agreement ( = 0.84). Conclusion In community-dwelling older adults, VFA and radiographs had comparable performances in identifying vertebral fractures, particularly if mild deformities are excluded. Therefore, this methodology is a feasible and promising alternative to improve the management of patients with a high risk of osteoporotic fractures.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/1721
Referências
  1. Binkley N, 2005, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V16, P1513, DOI 10.1007/s00198-005-1891-7
  2. Black DM, 1999, J BONE MINER RES, V14, P821, DOI 10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.5.821
  3. Buehring B, 2010, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V21, P487, DOI 10.1007/s00198-009-0972-4
  4. BURGER H, 1994, BRIT MED J, V309, P991
  5. Chapurlat RD, 2006, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V17, P1189, DOI 10.1007/s00198-006-0121-2
  6. COOPER C, 1992, J BONE MINER RES, V7, P221
  7. Damiano J, 2006, J CLIN DENSITOM, V9, P66, DOI 10.1016/j.jocd.2005.11.002
  8. Delmas PD, 2002, J CLIN ENDOCR METAB, V87, P3609, DOI 10.1210/jc.87.8.3609
  9. Delmas PD, 2005, J BONE MINER RES, V20, P557, DOI 10.1359/JBMR.041214
  10. Delmas PD, 2003, BONE, V33, P522, DOI 10.1016/S8756-3282(03)00241-2
  11. Duboeuf F, 2005, J CLIN DENSITOM, V8, P362, DOI 10.1220/1094-6950
  12. Ferrar L, 2000, J BONE MINER RES, V15, P575, DOI 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.3.575
  13. Fuerst T, 2009, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V20, P1199, DOI 10.1007/s00198-008-0806-9
  14. Gehlbach SH, 2000, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V11, P577, DOI 10.1007/s001980070078
  15. Genant HK, 2000, J CLIN DENSITOM, V3, P281, DOI 10.1385/JCD:3:3:281
  16. GENANT HK, 1993, J BONE MINER RES, V8, P1137
  17. Greenspan SL, 2001, J CLIN DENSITOM, V4, P373, DOI 10.1385/JCD:4:4:373
  18. Grigoryan M, 2003, EUR SPINE J, V12, pS104, DOI 10.1007/s00586-003-0613-0
  19. Hasserius R, 2003, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V14, P61, DOI 10.1007/s00198-002-1316-9
  20. Ismail AA, 1998, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V8, P291, DOI 10.1007/s001980050067
  21. Kado DM, 2003, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V14, P589, DOI 10.1007/s00198-003-1412-5
  22. LANE NE, 1993, J RHEUMATOL, V20, P1911
  23. Laster AJ, 2007, J CLIN DENSITOM, V10, P227, DOI 10.1016/j.jocd.2007.04.002
  24. LEWIS MK, 1994, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V4, P11, DOI 10.1007/BF02352255
  25. Lopes JB, 2011, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V22, P711, DOI 10.1007/s00198-010-1258-6
  26. Melton LJ, 1999, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V10, P214, DOI 10.1007/s001980050218
  27. OSMAN AAH, 1994, BONE, V15, P437, DOI 10.1016/8756-3282(94)90822-2
  28. Pavloy L, 2005, J CLIN DENSITOM, V8, P379, DOI 10.1385/JCD:8:4:379
  29. Rea JA, 2000, J BONE MINER RES, V15, P564, DOI 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.3.564
  30. Schousboe JT, 2002, J CLIN DENSITOM, V5, P239, DOI 10.1385/JCD:5:3:239
  31. Schousboe JT, 2006, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V17, P281, DOI 10.1007/s00198-005-2010-5
  32. Schousboe JT, 2008, J CLIN DENSITOM, V11, P92, DOI 10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.008
  33. Schousboe JT, 2006, J CLIN DENSITOM, V9, P133, DOI 10.1016/j.jocd.2005.11.004
  34. STEIGER P, 1994, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V4, P238, DOI 10.1007/BF01623347
  35. Szulc P, 2001, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V12, P302, DOI 10.1007/s001980170120
  36. Vallarta-Ast N, 2007, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V18, P1405, DOI 10.1007/s00198-007-0381-5
  37. Vokes TJ, 2003, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V14, P871, DOI 10.1007/s00198-003-1461-9
  38. Watts NB, 2008, J CLIN DENSITOM, V11, P473, DOI 10.1016/j.jocd.2008.04.003
  39. [Anonymous], 1998, FED REG, V63, P34320

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCM
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/17
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/23