Paper detail

Prevalence of algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method osteoporotic vertebral fracture in elderly Chinese men and women with reference to semi-quantitative (SQ) method: Mr. Os and Ms Os. (Hong Kong) studies

Introduction: This study evaluated algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method for vertebral fracture (VF) evaluation with reference to semi-quantitative (SQ) method and bone mineral density (BMD) measurement. Methods: Mr. OS (Hong Kong) and Ms. OS (Hong Kong) represent the first large-scale cohort studies on bone health in elderly Chinese men and women. The current study compared Genant's SQ method and ABQ method in these two cohorts. Based on quantitative measurement, the severity of ABQ method detected fractures was additionally classified into grade-1, grad-2, and grade-3 according to SQ's deformity criteria. The radiographs of 1,954 elderly Chinese men (mean: 72.3 years) and 1,953 elderly Chinese women (mean: 72.5 years) were evaluated. Results: according to ABQ, grade-1,-2,-3 VFs accounted for 1.89%, 1.74%, 2.25% in men, and 3.33%, 3.07%, and 5.53% in women. In men and women, 15.7% (35/223) and 34.5% (48/139) of vertebrae with SQ grade-1 deformity were ABQ(+, with fracture) respectively. In men and women, 89.7% (35/39) and 66.7% (48/72) of vertebrae with ABQ grade-1 fracture had SQ grade-1 deformity. For grade-1 change, SQ (-, negative without fracture) & ABQ (+, positive with vertebral cortex line fracture) subjects tend to have a lower BMD than the SQ(+)& ABQ(-) subjects. In subjects with SQ grade-2 deformity, those were also ABQ(+) tended to have a lower BMD than those were ABQ(-). In all grades, SQ(-)&ABQ(-) subjects tended to have highest BMD, while SQ(+)&ABQ(+)subjects tended to have lowest BMD. Conclusion: ABQ method may be more sensitive to VF associated mild lower BMD than SQ method.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access9 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.