PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16896637

[Quantitative ultrasound].

R Barkmann·C-C Glüer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Methods of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) can be used to obtain knowledge about bone fragility. Comprehensive study results exist showing the power of QUS for the estimation of osteoporotic fracture risk. Nevertheless, the variety of technologies, devices, and variables as well as different degrees of validation of the single devices have to be taken into account. Using methods to simulate ultrasound propagation, the complex interaction between ultrasound and bone could be understood and the propagation could be visualized. Preceding widespread clinical use, it has to be clarified if patients with low QUS values will profit from therapy, as it has been shown for DXA. Moreover, the introduction of quality assurance measures is essential. The user should know the limitations of the methods and be able to interpret the results correctly. Applied in an adequate manner QUS methods could then, due to lower costs and absence of ionizing radiation, become important players in osteoporosis management.

Explore related subjects

Fractures, SpontaneousHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedOsteoporosisPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'PrognosisUltrasonographyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Barkmann, C-C Glüer. 2006. [Quantitative ultrasound].. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-006-1394-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon.

OBJECTIVES: To describe practice patterns in the management of osteoporosis after fragility fracture. METHODS: Systematic review of articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases (1996 to February 2005). Diagnostic outcomes included clinical osteoporosis diagnoses, laboratory tests, and bone density scans. Treatment outcomes included initiation of calcium, vitamin D, hormone replacement therapy, bisphosphonates, calcitonin, raloxifene and falls assessments. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met our inclusion criteria and demonstrated that adults who experience fragility fracture are not receiving osteoporosis management. An osteoporosis diagnosis was reported in 1 to 45% of patients with fractures; laboratory tests were ordered for 1 to 49% and 1 to 32% of patients had bone density scans. Calcium/vitamin D and pharmacological therapy was reported in 2 to 62% and 1 to 65% of patients, respectively. Osteoporosis treatment was recommended more often in women than men, and more often in patients with vertebral fractures than in patients with nonvertebral fractures. Older patients were more likely to be diagnosed with osteoporosis, but treatment was more likely in younger patients. A history of prior fracture was reported in 7 to 67% of patients. Between 1 and 22% of patients had a subsequent fracture during follow-up periods of 6 months to 5 years. Falls assessments were not often reported; when they were, they were infrequently performed. A greater proportion of patients were diagnosed/treated during follow-up studies than in studies evaluating diagnosis/treatment on discharge from acute care. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individuals who sustain fragility fractures are not receiving adequate osteoporosis management. Future research should address barriers to appropriate management and the efficacy of implementation strategies designed to close the osteoporosis care gap. RELEVANCE: This article is of particular importance to health care professionals who provide care for patients with fragility fracture.

Fractures, Spontaneous↗