Objectives: To investigate the relation between volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) and speed of sound (SOS). Study design: Total and trabecular vBMD were measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography at ...Objectives: To investigate the relation between volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) and speed of sound (SOS). Study design: Total and trabecular vBMD were measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography at the forearm in a population of 216 individuals of a pediatric outpatient clinic. Moreover, SOS was measured by a quan-titative ultrasound device (QUS) at the thumb, patella, and os calcis. Results: Linear regression analysis revealed that the prediction of SOS by vBMD is relatively weak (R2 < 0.1). Moreover, body height and measures of bone size have a stronger influence on SOS than vBMD. The influence of bone size on SOS also depends on the location of measurement (highest prediction of SOS by body height at patella with R2 = 0.56). Anthropometric characteristics have a stronger influence on SOS than measures of bone mineral density at the thumb and patella in comparison to os calcis (body height predicts SOS at os calcis, with R2 = 0.03). Conclusions: QUS is not a suitable method to assess bone density. If QUS is applied for the assessment of bone development and of bone fracture risk, the measurement should be performed with consideration of anthropometric measurements.展开更多
文摘Objectives: To investigate the relation between volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) and speed of sound (SOS). Study design: Total and trabecular vBMD were measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography at the forearm in a population of 216 individuals of a pediatric outpatient clinic. Moreover, SOS was measured by a quan-titative ultrasound device (QUS) at the thumb, patella, and os calcis. Results: Linear regression analysis revealed that the prediction of SOS by vBMD is relatively weak (R2 < 0.1). Moreover, body height and measures of bone size have a stronger influence on SOS than vBMD. The influence of bone size on SOS also depends on the location of measurement (highest prediction of SOS by body height at patella with R2 = 0.56). Anthropometric characteristics have a stronger influence on SOS than measures of bone mineral density at the thumb and patella in comparison to os calcis (body height predicts SOS at os calcis, with R2 = 0.03). Conclusions: QUS is not a suitable method to assess bone density. If QUS is applied for the assessment of bone development and of bone fracture risk, the measurement should be performed with consideration of anthropometric measurements.
