Comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with six quantitative ultrasonometry devices in women with hip fractures

References

• Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:1726–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, et al. 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 2010;182:1864–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA. World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 1997;7:407–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost ML, Blake GM, Fogelman I. Contact quantitative ultrasound: an evaluation of precision, fracture discrimination, age-related bone loss and applicability of the WHO criteria. Osteoporos Int 1999;10:441–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varenna M, Sinigaglia L, Adami S, et al. Association of quantitative heel ultrasound with history of osteoporotic fractures in elderly men: the ESOPO study. Osteoporos Int 2005;16: 1749–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krieg MA, Cornuz J, Ruffieux C, et al. Prediction of hip fracture risk by quantitative ultrasound in more than 7000 Swiss women > or = 70 years of age: comparison of three technologically different bone ultrasound devices in the SEMOF study. J Bone Min Res 2006;21:1457–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schott AM, Hans D, Duboeuf F, et al. Quantitative ultrasound parameters as well as bone mineral density are better predictors of trochanteric than cervical hip fractures in elderly women. Results from the EPIDOS study. Bone 2005;37:858–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gluer CC, Eastell R, Reid DM, et al. Association of five quantitative ultrasound devices and bone densitometry with osteoporotic vertebral fractures in a population-based sample: the OPUS Study. J Bone Min Res 2004;19:782–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadji P, Hars O, Gorke K, Emons G, Schulz KD. Quantitative ultrasound of the os calcis in postmenopausal women with spine and hip fracture. J Clin Densitom 2000;3:233–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wuster C, Hadji P. Use of quantitative ultrasound densitometry (QUS) in male osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 2001;69: 225–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hans D, Krieg MA. Quantitative ultrasound for the detection and management of osteoporosis. Salud Publica Mex 2009;51(Suppl 1):S25–37
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gambacciani M, de Aloysio D, Elia D, van der Mooren MJ, Hadji P, Wuster C. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of bone in the management of postmenopausal women. Maturitas 2004; 47:139–49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Njeh CF, Boivin CM, Langton CM. The role of ultrasound in the assessment of osteoporosis: a review. Osteoporos Int 1997; 7:7–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Njeh CF, Hans D, Li J, et al. Comparison of six calcaneal quantitative ultrasound devices: precision and hip fracture discrimination. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:1051–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenspan SL, Bouxsein ML, Melton ME, et al. Precision and discriminatory ability of calcaneal bone assessment technologies. J Bone Min Res 1997;12:1303–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hans D, Allaoua S, Genton L, et al. Is time since hip fracture influencing the discrimination between fractured and nonfractured subjects as assessed at the calcaneum by three technologically different quantitative ultrasound devices? Calcif Tissue Int 2002;71:485–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moayyeri A, Adams JE, Adler RA, et al. Quantitative ultrasound of the heel and fracture risk assessment: an updated meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2012;23:143–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnabel M, Eser G, Ziller V, Mann D, Mann E, Hadji P.[Bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with proximal femoral fractures – comparative study between quantitative ultrasonometry and gold standard DXA]. Zentralbl Chir 2005; 130:469–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadji P, Hars O, Bock K, et al. Age changes of calcaneal ultrasonometry in healthy German women. Calcif Tissue Int 1999;65:117–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyvernitakis I, Saeger U, Ziller V, Bauer T, Seker-Pektas B, Hadji P. The effect of age, sex hormones, and bone turnover markers on calcaneal quantitative ultrasonometry in healthy German men. J Clin Densitom 2013;16:320–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadji P, Hars O, Wuster C, et al. Stiffness index identifies patients with osteoporotic fractures better than ultrasound velocity or attenuation alone. Maturitas 1999;31:221–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hans D, Schott AM, Duboeuf F, Durosier C, Meunier PJ, Group E. Does follow-up duration influence the ultrasound and DXA prediction of hip fracture? The EPIDOS prospective study. Bone 2004;35:357–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer DC, Gluer CC, Cauley JA, et al. Broadband ultrasound attenuation predicts fractures strongly and independently of densitometry in older women. A prospective study. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:629–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hans D, Durosier C, Kanis JA, Johansson H, Schott-Pethelaz AM, Krieg MA. Assessment of the 10-year probability of osteoporotic hip fracture combining clinical risk factors and heel bone ultrasound: the EPISEM prospective cohort of 12,958 elderly women. J Bone Min Res 2008;23:1045–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollaender R, Hartl F, Krieg MA, et al. Prospective evaluation of risk of vertebral fractures using quantitative ultrasound measurements and bone mineral density in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women: results of the Basel Osteoporosis Study. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:391–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar