You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 261 No. 20, May 26, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Original Contributions.
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (208)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Osteoporotic Bone Fragility

Detection by Ultrasound Transmission Velocity

Robert P. Heaney, MD; Louis V. Avioli, MD; Charles H. Chesnut III, MD; Joan Lappe, RN, MS; Robert R. Recker, MD; Gary H. Brandenburger, DSc

JAMA. 1989;261(20):2986-2990.


Abstract

We evaluated ultrasound transmission velocity at the patella as an indicator of osteoporotic fragility in 293 nonobese women. Osteoporosis was defined by atraumatic vertebral compression deformity. Ultrasound velocity averaged 1954 ±71 (±SD) m/s in premenopausal normal women and declined significantly with age after menopause, largely independently of age-related loss of spine bone mass. Postmenopausal osteoporotic women had lower velocities than normal women (-76 m/s). After allowing for slight differences in age between the groups, the difference ( - 54 m/s) was still significant. Women with velocities below 1825 m/s were about six times more likely to have one or more fractures than women with velocities above that level. By sensitivity-specificity analysis, ultrasound velocity discriminated between normal and osteoporotic women as well as direct measurement of spine bone mass. Ultrasound velocity measures both bone mass and a component of bone fragility distinct from decreased mass; it is a potentially valuable new tool for evaluating women for osteoporotic fragility.

(JAMA. 1989;261:2986-2990)



Author Affiliations

From the School of Nursing (Ms Lappe) and the Department of Medicine (Dr Recker), Creighton University (Dr Heaney), Omaha, Neb; the Department of Medicine, Jewish Hospital at Washington University Medical Center, St Louis, Mo (Dr Avioli); the Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Chesnut); and Osteo-Technology Inc, Cambridge, Mass (Dr Brandenburger).


Footnotes

Reprint requests to Creighton University, California at 24th Street, Omaha, NE 68178 (Dr Heaney).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Osteoporosis and Hip Fractures: Challenges to Investigators and Clinicians
Williams
JAMA 1990;263:708-709.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1989 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.