Ross P D, Davis J W, Vogel J M, Wasnich R D
Kuakini Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817.
Calcif Tissue Int. 1990 Mar;46(3):149-61. doi: 10.1007/BF02555036.
The usefulness of various bone mineral measurement techniques is a subject of current controversy. In order to explore whether disparate conclusions may have arisen from differences in analytic methodology, data from published reports of bone mass and nonviolent fractures have been reanalyzed in terms of fracture risk. In the large majority of studies, reduced bone mass was associated with an increased risk of fractures. However, the magnitude of the relationship varied much more among cross-sectional studies than among prospective studies, suggesting that bias related to subject selection and/or postfracture bone loss may have strongly influenced the cross-sectional findings. We conclude that more emphasis should be given to the results of prospective studies, and that more attention should be paid to subject selection in all investigations. Analyzing and presenting results in terms of fracture risk would probably reduce the level of confusion in the field and provide more clinically relevant information. These issues are also applicable to studies of potential fracture risk factors other than bone mass, such as bone structure and bone quality.
各种骨矿物质测量技术的实用性是当前争议的一个话题。为了探究不同的结论是否可能源于分析方法的差异,已根据骨折风险对已发表的骨量和非暴力骨折报告中的数据进行了重新分析。在绝大多数研究中,骨量减少与骨折风险增加相关。然而,横断面研究中这种关系的程度变化比前瞻性研究中要大得多,这表明与受试者选择和/或骨折后骨丢失相关的偏差可能对横断面研究结果产生了强烈影响。我们得出结论,应更加重视前瞻性研究的结果,并且在所有调查中都应更加关注受试者选择。根据骨折风险分析和呈现结果可能会降低该领域的混乱程度,并提供更多临床相关信息。这些问题也适用于除骨量之外的潜在骨折风险因素的研究,例如骨结构和骨质量。