SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Comparative analysis of bone density measurement techniques: a systematic review of quantitative ultrasound and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone mineral density (BMD) and bone-related parameters are essential for osteoporosis detection. Different screening modalities are used, including quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the correlation and clinical utility of DXA and QUS measurements. Methods: A literature search (2005-2025) was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library for English-language studies. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarize the study characteristics and outcomes. Results: Of the 1,247 identified records, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. DXA and QUS were used to assess bone parameters, such as BMD, bone mineral content (BMC), speed of sound (SOS), broadband ultrasound attenuation (BAU), and stiffness index (SI). The correlation between DXA and QUS varied widely (r = 0.17-0.86), with variable diagnostic performance across studies. Studies involving postmenopausal women and older populations reported similar trends, whereas the findings were inconsistent in pediatric and disease-specific populations. Conclusion: QUS is suitable for preliminary screening, especially in resource-limited settings, but cannot replace DXA for definitive diagnosis. Further well-designed studies with longer follow-up are required to better define the role of QUS in osteoporosis screening. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251146250.
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.