Publication:
Bone status measured by quantitative ultrasound: A comparison with DXA in Thai children

dc.contributor.authorW. Srichanen_US
dc.contributor.authorW. Thasanasuwanen_US
dc.contributor.authorK. Kijboonchooen_US
dc.contributor.authorN. Rojroongwasinkulen_US
dc.contributor.authorW. Wimonpeerapattanaen_US
dc.contributor.authorI. Khouwen_US
dc.contributor.authorP. Deurenbergen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherFriesland Campinaen_US
dc.contributor.otherNutrition Consultanten_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-11T03:33:00Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-14T08:02:11Z
dc.date.available2018-12-11T03:33:00Z
dc.date.available2019-03-14T08:02:11Z
dc.date.issued2016-08-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved. Background/Objectives:Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is used to measure bone quality and is known to be safe, radiation free and relatively inexpensive compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) that is considered the gold standard for bone status assessments. However, there is no consensus regarding the validity of QUS for measuring bone status. The aim of this study was to compare QUS and DXA in assessing bone status in Thai children.Subjects/Methods:A total of 181 Thai children (90 boys and 91 girls) aged 6 to 12 years were recruited. Bone status was measured by two different techniques in terms of the speed of sound (SOS) using QUS and bone mineral density (BMD) using DXA. Calcium intake was assessed by 24 h diet recall. Pearson's correlation, κ-statistic and Bland and Altman analysis were used to assess the agreement between the methods.Results:There was no correlation between the two different techniques. Mean difference (s.d.) of the Z-scores of BMD and SOS was-0.61 (1.27) that was different from zero (P<0.05). Tertiles of Z-scores of BMD and QUS showed low agreement (κ 0.022, P=0.677) and the limits of agreement in Bland and Altman statistics were wide.Conclusions:Although QUS is easy and convenient to use, the SOS measurements at the radius seem not appropriate for assessing bone quality status.en_US
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Vol.70, No.8 (2016), 894-897en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/ejcn.2015.180en_US
dc.identifier.issn14765640en_US
dc.identifier.issn09543007en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84945543086en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/41256
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84945543086&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleBone status measured by quantitative ultrasound: A comparison with DXA in Thai childrenen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84945543086&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections