↓ Skip to main content

Increased bone mineral density in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: Impact of body composition differences

Overview of attention for article published in BONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Increased bone mineral density in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: Impact of body composition differences
Published in
BONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.bone.2012.04.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

L.J. Maple-Brown, J. Hughes, L.S. Piers, L.C. Ward, J. Meerkin, J.A. Eisman, J.R. Center, N.A. Pocock, G. Jerums, K. O'Dea

Abstract

Bone mineral density (BMD) has been reported to be both higher and lower in Indigenous women from different populations. Body composition data have been reported for Indigenous Australians, but there are few published BMD data in this population. We assessed BMD in 161 Indigenous Australians, identified as Aboriginal (n=70), Torres Strait Islander (n=68) or both (n=23). BMD measurements were made on Norland-XR46 (n=107) and Hologic (n=90) dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machines. Norland BMD and body composition measurements in these individuals, and also in 36 Caucasian Australians, were converted to equivalent Hologic BMD (BMD(H)) and body composition measurements for comparison. Femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine Z-scores were high in Indigenous participants (mean FN Z-score: Indigenous men +0.98, p<0.0001 vs. mean zero; Indigenous women +0.82, p<0.0001 vs. mean zero). FN BMD(H) was higher in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander than Caucasian participants, after adjusting for age, gender, diabetes and height and remained higher in men after addition of lean mass to the model. We conclude that FN BMD is higher in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians than Caucasian Australian reference ranges and these differences still remained significant in men after adjustment for lean mass. It remains to be seen whether these BMD differences translate to differences in fracture rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 22%
Researcher 4 17%
Professor 3 13%
Other 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BONE
#3,037
of 4,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,154
of 175,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BONE
#33
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,328 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 175,584 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.