↓ Skip to main content

The comparability of HR-pQCT bone measurements is improved by scanning anatomically standardized regions

Overview of attention for article published in Osteoporosis International, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
The comparability of HR-pQCT bone measurements is improved by scanning anatomically standardized regions
Published in
Osteoporosis International, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00198-017-4010-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Bonaretti, S. Majumdar, T. F. Lang, S. Khosla, A. J. Burghardt

Abstract

We investigated the sensitivity of distal bone density, structure, and strength measurements by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to variability in limb length. Our results demonstrate that HR-pQCT should be performed at a standard %-of-total-limb-length to avoid substantial measurement bias in population study comparisons and the evaluation of individual skeletal status in a clinical context. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) measures of bone do not account for anatomic variability in bone length: a 1-cm volume is acquired at a fixed offset from an anatomic landmark. Our goal was to evaluate HR-pQCT measurement variability introduced by imaging fixed vs. proportional volumes and to propose a standard protocol for relative anatomic positioning. Double-length (2-cm) scans were acquired in 30 adults. We compared measurements from 1-cm sub-volumes located at the default fixed offset, and the average %-of-length offset. The average position corresponded to 4.0% ± 1.1 mm for radius, and 7.2% ± 2.2 mm for tibia. We calculated the RMS difference in bone parameters and T-scores to determine the measurement variability related to differences in limb length. We used anthropometric ratios to estimate the mean limb length for published HR-pQCT reference data, and then calculated mean %-of-length offsets. Variability between fixed vs. relative scan positions was highest in the radius, and for cortical bone in general (RMS difference Ct.Th = 19.5%), while individuals had T-score differentials as high as +3.0 SD (radius Ct.BMD). We estimated that average scan position for published HR-pQCT reference data corresponded to 4.0% at the radius, and 7.3% at tibia. Variability in limb length introduces significant bias to HR-pQCT measures, confounding cross-sectional analyses and limiting the clinical application for individual assessment of skeletal status. We propose to standardize scan positioning using 4.0 and 7.3% of total bone length for the distal radius and tibia, respectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 13 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,471,671
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Osteoporosis International
#2,021
of 3,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,832
of 309,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Osteoporosis International
#30
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.