Defining incident vertebral deformities in population studies: a comparison of morphometric criteria
Defining incident vertebral deformities in population studies: a comparison of morphometric criteria
 
  Various morphometric criteria have been used to define incident vertebral deformity. The aim of this analysis was to compare the relative validity of two established criteria and a novel method in which these criteria were combined. Men and women aged 50 years and over were recruited from population registers across Europe and had lateral spinal radiographs performed using a standard protocol. A subsample of individuals had bone mineral density (BMD) at the spine or femoral neck. Subjects were followed prospectively and a subsample had repeat spinal radiographs a median of 3.8 years after the baseline survey. All radiographs were evaluated morphometrically in the radiology coordinating center in Berlin. Anterior, middle and posterior height were recorded in all vertebrae from T4 to L4. On the basis of these morphometric measurements incident vertebral deformity was defined using one of three methods: (i) the change method - a change in any vertebral height of 20% or more between films, plus the additional requirement that a vertebral body have changed in absolute vertebral height by 4 mm or more; (ii) the point prevalence method, where a vertebra satisfies criteria for a prevalent deformity (McCloskey-Kanis) on the follow-up, though not the baseline film; (iii) a combination of the height reduction and the point prevalence criteria. Paired films were also evaluated qualitatively by an experienced radiologist for the presence of incident vertebral deformity. Logistic regression was used to compare the three morphometric methods using known risk factors for vertebral deformity including age, baseline vertebral deformity and BMD, and the qualitative evaluation. Computer simulation was used to determine the potential degree of bias and loss of statistical efficiency due to misclassification for each of the three methods, using the radiologist's assessment of incident deformity as the reference. Six thousand eight hundred subjects were included in this analysis. Of these 450 had sustained an incident vertebral deformity according to at least one of the three morphometric methods. The distribution of risk factors was similar in the subjects who satisfied only one morphometric criterion and those who satisfied neither. However, the subjects who satisfied both criteria had a very different distribution of risk factors: they were older, more likely to be female, more likely to have had a previous vertebral deformity and more likely to have an incident fracture in the opinion of an experienced radiologist. Using computer simulation, at low incidence levels, combining the criteria led to greater statistical efficiency and less bias in estimating associations with risk factors. Thus in this analysis the combination of the point prevalence and 20% change in height criterion for defining incident vertebral deformity showed a stronger relationship with clinical risk factors than either single criterion. Its application in population-based studies would increase the likelihood of detecting risk factors for incident vertebral deformity for a given sample size.
  comparison of morphometric methods, incident vertebral deformity, population study, vertebral morphometry
  
  
  809-815
  
    
      Lunt, M.
      
        c2b3288c-62f9-4a6c-aca5-ad0c1cc76ce5
      
     
  
    
      Ismail, A.A.
      
        efd64d91-7d5b-421d-9532-e25a7ad02c7d
      
     
  
    
      Felsenberg, D.
      
        a8f19c6b-0781-4071-bfce-442eaa59e9bf
      
     
  
    
      Cooper, C.
      
        e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
      
     
  
    
      Kanis, J.A.
      
        8da04a36-08a7-4310-b4b4-a6d432439587
      
     
  
    
      Reeve, J.
      
        8f5bc093-0e10-42ca-8d4a-07c1eaace565
      
     
  
    
      Silman, A.J.
      
        9d44d748-a9d2-447e-87dd-6dfa3d4eb1ac
      
     
  
    
      O'Neill, T.W.
      
        688d84bf-f76f-4777-a3e1-65c6e5526365
      
     
  
  
   
  
  
    
      2002
    
    
  
  
    
      Lunt, M.
      
        c2b3288c-62f9-4a6c-aca5-ad0c1cc76ce5
      
     
  
    
      Ismail, A.A.
      
        efd64d91-7d5b-421d-9532-e25a7ad02c7d
      
     
  
    
      Felsenberg, D.
      
        a8f19c6b-0781-4071-bfce-442eaa59e9bf
      
     
  
    
      Cooper, C.
      
        e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
      
     
  
    
      Kanis, J.A.
      
        8da04a36-08a7-4310-b4b4-a6d432439587
      
     
  
    
      Reeve, J.
      
        8f5bc093-0e10-42ca-8d4a-07c1eaace565
      
     
  
    
      Silman, A.J.
      
        9d44d748-a9d2-447e-87dd-6dfa3d4eb1ac
      
     
  
    
      O'Neill, T.W.
      
        688d84bf-f76f-4777-a3e1-65c6e5526365
      
     
  
       
    
 
  
    
      
  
  
  
  
  
  
    Lunt, M., Ismail, A.A., Felsenberg, D., Cooper, C., Kanis, J.A., Reeve, J., Silman, A.J. and O'Neill, T.W.
  
  
  
  
   
    (2002)
  
  
    
    Defining incident vertebral deformities in population studies: a comparison of morphometric criteria.
  
  
  
  
    Osteoporosis International, 13 (10), .
  
   (doi:10.1007/s001980200112). 
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
    
      
        
          Abstract
          Various morphometric criteria have been used to define incident vertebral deformity. The aim of this analysis was to compare the relative validity of two established criteria and a novel method in which these criteria were combined. Men and women aged 50 years and over were recruited from population registers across Europe and had lateral spinal radiographs performed using a standard protocol. A subsample of individuals had bone mineral density (BMD) at the spine or femoral neck. Subjects were followed prospectively and a subsample had repeat spinal radiographs a median of 3.8 years after the baseline survey. All radiographs were evaluated morphometrically in the radiology coordinating center in Berlin. Anterior, middle and posterior height were recorded in all vertebrae from T4 to L4. On the basis of these morphometric measurements incident vertebral deformity was defined using one of three methods: (i) the change method - a change in any vertebral height of 20% or more between films, plus the additional requirement that a vertebral body have changed in absolute vertebral height by 4 mm or more; (ii) the point prevalence method, where a vertebra satisfies criteria for a prevalent deformity (McCloskey-Kanis) on the follow-up, though not the baseline film; (iii) a combination of the height reduction and the point prevalence criteria. Paired films were also evaluated qualitatively by an experienced radiologist for the presence of incident vertebral deformity. Logistic regression was used to compare the three morphometric methods using known risk factors for vertebral deformity including age, baseline vertebral deformity and BMD, and the qualitative evaluation. Computer simulation was used to determine the potential degree of bias and loss of statistical efficiency due to misclassification for each of the three methods, using the radiologist's assessment of incident deformity as the reference. Six thousand eight hundred subjects were included in this analysis. Of these 450 had sustained an incident vertebral deformity according to at least one of the three morphometric methods. The distribution of risk factors was similar in the subjects who satisfied only one morphometric criterion and those who satisfied neither. However, the subjects who satisfied both criteria had a very different distribution of risk factors: they were older, more likely to be female, more likely to have had a previous vertebral deformity and more likely to have an incident fracture in the opinion of an experienced radiologist. Using computer simulation, at low incidence levels, combining the criteria led to greater statistical efficiency and less bias in estimating associations with risk factors. Thus in this analysis the combination of the point prevalence and 20% change in height criterion for defining incident vertebral deformity showed a stronger relationship with clinical risk factors than either single criterion. Its application in population-based studies would increase the likelihood of detecting risk factors for incident vertebral deformity for a given sample size.
        
        This record has no associated files available for download.
       
    
    
   
  
  
  More information
  
    
      Published date: 2002
 
    
  
  
    
  
    
  
    
  
    
  
    
     
    
  
    
     
        Keywords:
        comparison of morphometric methods, incident vertebral deformity, population study, vertebral morphometry
      
    
  
    
  
    
  
  
  
    
  
  
        Identifiers
        Local EPrints ID: 25772
        URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/25772
        
          
        
        
        
          ISSN: 0937-941X
        
        
          PURE UUID: 1fc8af52-7290-49c8-a1ca-44c5788e901a
        
  
    
        
          
        
    
        
          
        
    
        
          
        
    
        
          
            
              
            
          
        
    
        
          
        
    
        
          
        
    
        
          
        
    
        
          
        
    
  
  Catalogue record
  Date deposited: 19 Apr 2006
  Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 02:44
  Export record
  
  
   Altmetrics
   
   
  
 
 
  
    
    
      Contributors
      
          
          Author:
          
            
            
              M. Lunt
            
          
        
      
          
          Author:
          
            
            
              A.A. Ismail
            
          
        
      
          
          Author:
          
            
            
              D. Felsenberg
            
          
        
      
        
      
          
          Author:
          
            
            
              J.A. Kanis
            
          
        
      
          
          Author:
          
            
            
              J. Reeve
            
          
        
      
          
          Author:
          
            
            
              A.J. Silman
            
          
        
      
          
          Author:
          
            
            
              T.W. O'Neill
            
          
        
      
      
      
    
  
   
  
    Download statistics
    
      Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
      
      View more statistics