Lunt M, Ismail A A, Felsenberg D, Cooper C, Kanis J A, Reeve J, Silman A J, O'Neill T W
ARC Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Osteoporos Int. 2002 Oct;13(10):809-15. doi: 10.1007/s001980200112.
Various morphometric criteria have been used to define incident vertebral deformity. The aim of this analysis was to compare the relative validity of two established criteria and a novel method in which these criteria were combined. Men and women aged 50 years and over were recruited from population registers across Europe and had lateral spinal radiographs performed using a standard protocol. A subsample of individuals had bone mineral density (BMD) at the spine or femoral neck. Subjects were followed prospectively and a subsample had repeat spinal radiographs a median of 3.8 years after the baseline survey. All radiographs were evaluated morphometrically in the radiology coordinating center in Berlin. Anterior, middle and posterior height were recorded in all vertebrae from T4 to L4. On the basis of these morphometric measurements incident vertebral deformity was defined using one of three methods: (i) the change method - a change in any vertebral height of 20% or more between films, plus the additional requirement that a vertebral body have changed in absolute vertebral height by 4 mm or more; (ii) the point prevalence method, where a vertebra satisfies criteria for a prevalent deformity (McCloskey-Kanis) on the follow-up, though not the baseline film; (iii) a combination of the height reduction and the point prevalence criteria. Paired films were also evaluated qualitatively by an experienced radiologist for the presence of incident vertebral deformity. Logistic regression was used to compare the three morphometric methods using known risk factors for vertebral deformity including age, baseline vertebral deformity and BMD, and the qualitative evaluation. Computer simulation was used to determine the potential degree of bias and loss of statistical efficiency due to misclassification for each of the three methods, using the radiologist's assessment of incident deformity as the reference. Six thousand eight hundred subjects were included in this analysis. Of these 450 had sustained an incident vertebral deformity according to at least one of the three morphometric methods. The distribution of risk factors was similar in the subjects who satisfied only one morphometric criterion and those who satisfied neither. However, the subjects who satisfied both criteria had a very different distribution of risk factors: they were older, more likely to be female, more likely to have had a previous vertebral deformity and more likely to have an incident fracture in the opinion of an experienced radiologist. Using computer simulation, at low incidence levels, combining the criteria led to greater statistical efficiency and less bias in estimating associations with risk factors. Thus in this analysis the combination of the point prevalence and 20% change in height criterion for defining incident vertebral deformity showed a stronger relationship with clinical risk factors than either single criterion. Its application in population-based studies would increase the likelihood of detecting risk factors for incident vertebral deformity for a given sample size.
各种形态计量学标准已被用于定义新发椎体畸形。本分析的目的是比较两种既定标准和一种将这些标准相结合的新方法的相对有效性。年龄在50岁及以上的男性和女性从欧洲各地的人口登记册中招募,并按照标准方案进行脊柱侧位X线摄影。部分个体的脊柱或股骨颈处有骨密度(BMD)数据。对受试者进行前瞻性随访,部分受试者在基线调查后中位数3.8年时进行了重复脊柱X线摄影。所有X线片均在柏林的放射学协调中心进行形态计量学评估。记录从T4到L4所有椎体的前、中、后高度。基于这些形态计量学测量结果,使用以下三种方法之一定义新发椎体畸形:(i)变化法——两次拍片之间任何椎体高度变化20%或更多,外加椎体绝对高度变化4mm或更多的额外要求;(ii)现患率法,即某一椎体在随访时满足现患畸形标准(麦克洛斯基-卡尼斯标准),但在基线片上不满足;(iii)高度降低标准和现患率标准的组合。一位经验丰富的放射科医生还对配对的X线片进行了定性评估,以确定是否存在新发椎体畸形。使用逻辑回归,结合椎体畸形的已知风险因素(包括年龄、基线椎体畸形和BMD)以及定性评估,对三种形态计量学方法进行比较。使用计算机模拟,以放射科医生对新发畸形的评估为参考,确定三种方法中每种方法因错误分类导致的潜在偏倚程度和统计效率损失。本分析纳入了6800名受试者。其中,450名受试者根据三种形态计量学方法中的至少一种发生了新发椎体畸形。仅满足一种形态计量学标准的受试者和不满足任何标准的受试者的风险因素分布相似。然而,同时满足两种标准的受试者的风险因素分布非常不同:他们年龄更大,更可能为女性,更可能既往有椎体畸形,且根据经验丰富的放射科医生的判断更可能发生新发骨折。使用计算机模拟,在低发病率水平下,结合标准可提高统计效率,且在估计与风险因素的关联时偏倚更小。因此,在本分析中,将现患率标准和高度变化20%标准相结合来定义新发椎体畸形,与临床风险因素的关系比任何单一标准都更强。在基于人群的研究中应用该方法,在给定样本量的情况下,将增加检测新发椎体畸形风险因素的可能性。