IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p14315-d960778.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spine Fragility Fracture Prediction Using TBS and BMD in Postmenopausal Women: A Bayesian Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Claudio Ripamonti

    (Center for Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolic Diseases, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

  • Lucia Lisi

    (Medicine & Rheumatology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

  • Jacopo Ciaffi

    (Medicine & Rheumatology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

  • Angela Buffa

    (UOC Medicina Interna ad Indirizzo Reumatologico AUSL, 40133 Bologna, Italy
    Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy)

  • Renata Caudarella

    (Casa di Cura Privata Villalba, GVM Care & Research, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

  • Francesco Ursini

    (Medicine & Rheumatology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
    Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy)

Abstract

The trabecular bone score (TBS) estimates bone microarchitecture and can be used to evaluate the risk of osteoporotic fractures independently of bone mineral density (BMD). In this retrospective case-control study, we tested and compared the ability of TBS and lumbar spine BMD (LS-BMD) to predict vertebral fragility fractures. The inclusion criteria were female sex, age range 50–90 years, menopause, and clinical risk factors for osteoporosis. Patients with secondary osteoporosis were excluded. LS-BMD and TBS were measured at the L1–L4 vertebral level. The ability of the two diagnostic systems in predicting vertebral fragility fractures was assessed by combining LS-BMD and TBS according to the Bayesian “OR rule” (the diagnosis is negative only for those negative for both tests, and it is positive for those who were positive for at least one test) or to the “AND rule” (the diagnosis is positive only for those positive to both tests and is negative for those negative for at least one test). Of the 992 postmenopausal women included, 86 had a documented vertebral fragility fracture. At the cutoff value used in the present study, the TBS and LS-BMD showed a similar diagnostic ability to predict vertebral fragility fractures, having positive predictive values (PPV) of, respectively, 13.19% and 13.24%. Negative predictive values (NPV) were, respectively, 95.40% and 94.95%. Compared to that of each single diagnostic system, the “OR-rule” significantly increased the NPV to 97.89%, while no statistically significant differences were found by using the “AND-rule”. In conclusion, the present study highlights the possibility that combining LS-BMD and TBS could improve their predictive ability in diagnosing vertebral fragility fractures, and that there is a significant probability of absence of fractures in women who test negative to both diagnostic systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudio Ripamonti & Lucia Lisi & Jacopo Ciaffi & Angela Buffa & Renata Caudarella & Francesco Ursini, 2022. "Spine Fragility Fracture Prediction Using TBS and BMD in Postmenopausal Women: A Bayesian Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-12, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14315-:d:960778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14315/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14315/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14315-:d:960778. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.