Skip to main content
Log in

Can the WHO definition of osteoporosis be applied to multi-site axial transmission quantitative ultrasound?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent but preventable disease and, as such, it is important that there are appropriate diagnostic criteria to identify those at risk of low trauma fracture. In 1994 the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced definitions of osteoporosis and osteopenia using T-scores, which identified 30% of all Caucasian post-menopausal women as having osteoporosis. However, the use of the WHO T-score thresholds of −2.5 for osteoporosis and −1.0 for osteopenia may be inappropriate at skeletal sites other than the spine, hip and forearm or when other modalities, such as quantitative ultrasound (QUS) are used. The aim of this study was to evaluate the age-dependence of T-scores for speed of sound (SOS) measurements at the radius, tibia, phalanx and metatarsal by use of the Sunlight Omnisense, to evaluate the prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia at these sites by use of the WHO criteria, and calculate appropriate equivalent T-score thresholds. The study population consisted of 278 healthy pre-menopausal women, 194 healthy post-menopausal women and 115 women with atraumatic vertebral fractures. All women had SOS measurements at the radius, tibia, phalanx and metatarsal and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at the lumbar spine and hip. A group of healthy pre-menopausal women aged 20–40 years from the pre-menopausal group were used to estimate the population mean and SD for each of the SOS and BMD measurement sites. Healthy post-menopausal women were classified into normal, osteopenic or osteoporotic, based upon the standard WHO definition of osteoporosis and expressed as a percentage. We investigated the age-related decline in T-scores from 20–79 by stratifying the healthy subjects into 10-year age groups and calculating the mean T-score for each of these groups. Finally, we estimated appropriate T-score thresholds, using five different approaches. The prevalence of osteoporosis in the post-menopausal women aged 50 years and over ranged from 1.4 to 12.7% for SOS and 1.3 to 5.2% for BMD. The age-related decline in T-scores ranged from −0.92 to −1.80 for SOS measurements in the 60 to 69-year age group and −0.60 to −1.19 for BMD measurements in the same age group. The WHO definition was not suitable for use with SOS measurements, and revised T-score thresholds for the diagnosis of osteoporosis of −2.6, −3.0, −3.0 and −2.2 and for osteopenia of −1.4, −1.6, −2.3, and −1.4, for the radius, tibia, phalanx and metatarsal, respectively, were recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 1 Anonymous WHO Study Group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for post-menopausal osteoporosis. WHO, Geneva

  • 2 Faulkner KG, Roberts LA, McClung MR (1996) Discrepancies in normative data between lunar and hologic DXA systems. Osteoporos Int 6:432–436

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 3 Genant HK, Grman ME, Hangartner T, et al (1995) Standardisation of measurements for assessing BMD by DXA. Calcif Tissue Int 57:469

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 4 Hanson J (1997) Standardisation of femur BMD. J Bone Miner Res 12:1316–1317

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 5 Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, et al (1995) Proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 5:389–409

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 6 Faulker KG, von Stetten E, Steiger P, et al (1998) Discrepancies in osteoporosis prevalence at different skeletal sites: impact on the WHO criteria. Bone 23: s194

    Google Scholar 

  • 7 Hans D, Schott A-M, Dargent-Molina P, et al (1998) Is the WHO criteria applicable to quantitative ultrasound measurement? The EPIDOS prospective study. Bone 23:s238

    Google Scholar 

  • 8 Frost ML, Blake GM, Fogelman I (2000) Can the WHO criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis be applied to calcaneal quantitative ultrasound? Osteoporos Int 11:321–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 9 Ish-Shalom S, Yaniv I, Singal C, et al (1999) Can the WHO osteoporosis criteria be applied to ultrasound measurements? 11th International Workshop on Calcified Tissues. Abstracts:34

  • 10 Delmas PD (2000) Do we need to change the WHO definition of osteoporosis? Osteoporos Int 11:189–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 11 Barkmann R, Kantorovich E, Singal C, et al (2000) A new method for quantitative ultrasound measurements at multiple skeletal sites. J Clin Densitom 3:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • 12 Sunlight Ultrasound Technologies Ltd (1998) Sunlight Omnisense User Manual

  • 13 Ryan PJ, Blake GM, Fogelman I (1992) Post-menopausal screening for osteopenia. Br J Rheumatol 31:823–828

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 14 Knapp KM, Blake GM, Spector TD, et al (2001) Multisite quantitative ultrasound: precision, age- and menopause-related changes, fracture discrimination, and T-score equivalence with dual energy absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 12:456–464

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 15 Weiss M, Ben-Shlomo A, Hagag P, et al (2000) Reference database for bone speed of sound measurements by a novel quantitative multi-site ultrasound device. Osteoporos Int 11:688–696

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 16 Dennison E, Eastell R, Fall CHD, et al (1999) Determinants of bone loss in elderly men and women: a prospective population-based study. Osteoporos Int 10:384–391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 17 Kontulainen S, Kannus P, Haapasalo H, et al (2001) Good maintenance of exercise-induced bone gain with decreased training of female tennis and squash players: a prospective 5-year follow-up study of young and old starters and controls. J Bone Miner Res 16:195–201

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 18 Maddalozzo GF, Snow CM (2000) High intensity resistance training: effects on bone in older men and women. Calcif Tissue Int 66:399–404

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 19 Coupland CAC, Grainge MJ, Cliffe SJ, et al (2000) Occupational activity and bone mineral density in post-menopausal women in England. Osteoporos Int 11:310–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 20 Mulder JE, Michaeli D, Flaster ER, et al (2000) Comparison of bone mineral density of the phalanges, lumbar spine, hip and forearm for assessment of osteoporosis in post-menopausal women. J Clin Densitom 3:373–381

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 21 Gürlek A, Bayraktar M, Ariyurek M (2000) Inappropriate reference range for peak bone mineral density in dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: implications for the interpretation of T-score. Osteoporos Int 11:809–813

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 22 Kim K II, Han I-K, Kim H, et al (2001) How reliable is the ultrasound densitometer for community screening to diagnose osteoporosis in spine, femur and forearm? J Clin Densitom 4:159–165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 23 Woodson G (2000) Dual X-ray absorptiometry T-score concordance and discordance between hip and spine measurement sites. J Clin Densitom 3:319–324

    Google Scholar 

  • 24 Melton LJ (1995) How many women have osteoporosis now? J Bone Miner Res 10:175–177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 25 Looker AC, Orwell ES, Johnston CC Jr, et al (1997) Prevalence of low femoral bone density in older US adults from NHANES III. J Bone Miner Res 12:1761–1768

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 26 Ballard PA, Purdie DW, Langton CM, et al (1998) Prevalence of osteoporosis and related risk factors in UK women in the seventh decade: osteoporosis case finding by clinical referral criteria or predictive model? Osteoporos Int 8:535–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 27 Ahmed AIH, Ilic D, Blake GM, et al (1998) Review of 3,530 referrals for bone density measurements of spine and femur: evidence that radiographic osteopenia predicts low bone mass. Radiology 207:619–624

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 28 Meyer HE, Tverdal A, Falch JA, et al (2000) Factors associated with mortality after hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 11:228–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 29 National Osteoporosis Society (2001). Position statement on the use of quantitative ultrasound in the management of osteoporosis. NOS, UK

  • 30 Ryan PJ, Spector TD, Blake GM, et al (1993) A comparison of reference bone mineral density measurements derived from two sources: referred and population based. Br J Radiol 66:1138–1141

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 31 Andrew T, Hart DJ, Sneider H, de Lange M, et al (2001) Are twins and singletons comparable? A study of disease-related and lifestyle characteristics in adult women. Twin Res 4:464–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 32 Black D, Nevitt M, Palermo L, et al (1993) Prediction of new vertebral deformities. J Bone Miner Res 8 [Suppl 1]:S135

  • 33 Melton LJ (1993)Long-term fracture prediction by bone mineral assessment at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res 8:1227–1233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 34 Blake GM (2001) Peripheral or central densitometry: does it matter which technique we use? J Clin Densitom 4:83–96

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff, volunteers, patients, twins, and the National Osteoporosis Society, UK for funding the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. M. Knapp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knapp, K.M., Blake, G.M., Spector, T.D. et al. Can the WHO definition of osteoporosis be applied to multi-site axial transmission quantitative ultrasound?. Osteoporos Int 15, 367–374 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1555-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1555-4

Keywords

Navigation