ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025
Utilization of Quantitative Ultrasound Methods for Bone Mass Density Measurement in General Population - An Observational Study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although osteoporosis can be diagnosed by many methods like quantitative ultrasound (QUS), peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), hand X-rays, or clinical examinations but the diseases remain undertreated mainly due to a lack of mechanism to identify individuals who may be at high risk of fracture and might get benefit from the timey interventions. The availability of central DEXA is not uniform in many countries; hence, a reliable, cheap, portable handy equipment is needed. Role of QUS as an alternative to DEXA has been studied for selective population but a very few studies have attempted its utility in the general population for routine use. Materials and Methods: The cross-sectional observational study was done with 283 patients with age more than 40 years with both sexes. Any patient with a history of trauma, infection, surgical infection or immobilization of the lower limb for more than 6 weeks in the preceding 1 year. The left calcaneum was used for calculating T-score by QUS by utilizing 500 kHz ultrasonic frequency for the ultrasound pulse penetration method. Results: The mean age of the study population was 51.4 ± 10.54 years with 188 female and 95 males. The prevalence of osteopenia was slightly higher among the female population (68.6%) in the current study group in comparison to males (54.7%). The age and symptoms of osteopenia were the two variables which significantly determined the predictive power of QUS in diagnosing osteopenia. Conclusion: The use of calcaneum QUS proved to be a rapid and efficient method for assessing bone mass density, demonstrating its ability to detect osteopenia, especially in older and symptomatic patients. Given its cost-effectiveness, portability, and safety due to the absence of ionizing radiation, QUS serves as a valuable and attractive alternative for initial bone health assessment, particularly in settings with limited access to central DEXA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.