Cargando…

Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—Osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Imaging for osteoporosis has two major aims, first, to identify the presence of low bone mass (osteopenia), and second, to quantify bone mass using semiquantitative (conventional radiography) or quantitative (densitometry) methods. In young children, densitometry is hampered by the lack...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rosendahl, Karen, Lundestad, Anette, Bjørlykke, John Asle, Lein, Regina Küfner, Angenete, Oskar, Augdal, Thomas Angell, Müller, Lil-Sofie Ording, Jaramillo, Diego
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7605664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33137162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241635
_version_ 1783604349807624192
author Rosendahl, Karen
Lundestad, Anette
Bjørlykke, John Asle
Lein, Regina Küfner
Angenete, Oskar
Augdal, Thomas Angell
Müller, Lil-Sofie Ording
Jaramillo, Diego
author_facet Rosendahl, Karen
Lundestad, Anette
Bjørlykke, John Asle
Lein, Regina Küfner
Angenete, Oskar
Augdal, Thomas Angell
Müller, Lil-Sofie Ording
Jaramillo, Diego
author_sort Rosendahl, Karen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Imaging for osteoporosis has two major aims, first, to identify the presence of low bone mass (osteopenia), and second, to quantify bone mass using semiquantitative (conventional radiography) or quantitative (densitometry) methods. In young children, densitometry is hampered by the lack of reference values, and high-quality radiographs still play a role although the evaluation of osteopenia as a marker for osteoporosis is subjective and based on personal experience. Medical experts questioned in court over child abuse, often refer to the literature and state that 20–40% loss of bone mass is warranted before osteopenia becomes evident on radiographs. In our systematic review, we aimed at identifying evidence underpinning this statement. A secondary outcome was identifying normal references for cortical thickness of the skeleton in infants born term, < 2 years of age. METHODS: We undertook systematic searches in Medline, Embase and Svemed+, covering 1946–2020. Unpublished material was searched in Clinical trials and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Both relevant subject headings and free text words were used for the following concepts: osteoporosis or osteopenia, radiography, children up to 6 years. RESULTS: A total 5592 publications were identified, of which none met the inclusion criteria for the primary outcome; the degree of bone loss warranted before osteopenia becomes visible radiographically. As for the secondary outcome, 21 studies were identified. None of the studies was true population based and none covered the pre-defined age range from 0–2 years. However, four studies of which three having a crossectional and one a longitudinal design, included newborns while one study included children 0–2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an extensive literature search, we did not find any studies supporting the assumption that a 20–40% bone loss is required before osteopenia becomes visible on radiographs. Reference values for cortical thickness were sparse. Further studies addressing this important topic are warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7605664
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76056642020-11-05 Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—Osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. A systematic review Rosendahl, Karen Lundestad, Anette Bjørlykke, John Asle Lein, Regina Küfner Angenete, Oskar Augdal, Thomas Angell Müller, Lil-Sofie Ording Jaramillo, Diego PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Imaging for osteoporosis has two major aims, first, to identify the presence of low bone mass (osteopenia), and second, to quantify bone mass using semiquantitative (conventional radiography) or quantitative (densitometry) methods. In young children, densitometry is hampered by the lack of reference values, and high-quality radiographs still play a role although the evaluation of osteopenia as a marker for osteoporosis is subjective and based on personal experience. Medical experts questioned in court over child abuse, often refer to the literature and state that 20–40% loss of bone mass is warranted before osteopenia becomes evident on radiographs. In our systematic review, we aimed at identifying evidence underpinning this statement. A secondary outcome was identifying normal references for cortical thickness of the skeleton in infants born term, < 2 years of age. METHODS: We undertook systematic searches in Medline, Embase and Svemed+, covering 1946–2020. Unpublished material was searched in Clinical trials and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Both relevant subject headings and free text words were used for the following concepts: osteoporosis or osteopenia, radiography, children up to 6 years. RESULTS: A total 5592 publications were identified, of which none met the inclusion criteria for the primary outcome; the degree of bone loss warranted before osteopenia becomes visible radiographically. As for the secondary outcome, 21 studies were identified. None of the studies was true population based and none covered the pre-defined age range from 0–2 years. However, four studies of which three having a crossectional and one a longitudinal design, included newborns while one study included children 0–2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an extensive literature search, we did not find any studies supporting the assumption that a 20–40% bone loss is required before osteopenia becomes visible on radiographs. Reference values for cortical thickness were sparse. Further studies addressing this important topic are warranted. Public Library of Science 2020-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7605664/ /pubmed/33137162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241635 Text en © 2020 Rosendahl et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rosendahl, Karen
Lundestad, Anette
Bjørlykke, John Asle
Lein, Regina Küfner
Angenete, Oskar
Augdal, Thomas Angell
Müller, Lil-Sofie Ording
Jaramillo, Diego
Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—Osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. A systematic review
title Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—Osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. A systematic review
title_full Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—Osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. A systematic review
title_fullStr Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—Osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—Osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. A systematic review
title_short Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—Osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. A systematic review
title_sort revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis—osteopenia in children 0–2 years of age. a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7605664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33137162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241635
work_keys_str_mv AT rosendahlkaren revisitingtheradiographicassessmentofosteoporosisosteopeniainchildren02yearsofageasystematicreview
AT lundestadanette revisitingtheradiographicassessmentofosteoporosisosteopeniainchildren02yearsofageasystematicreview
AT bjørlykkejohnasle revisitingtheradiographicassessmentofosteoporosisosteopeniainchildren02yearsofageasystematicreview
AT leinreginakufner revisitingtheradiographicassessmentofosteoporosisosteopeniainchildren02yearsofageasystematicreview
AT angeneteoskar revisitingtheradiographicassessmentofosteoporosisosteopeniainchildren02yearsofageasystematicreview
AT augdalthomasangell revisitingtheradiographicassessmentofosteoporosisosteopeniainchildren02yearsofageasystematicreview
AT mullerlilsofieording revisitingtheradiographicassessmentofosteoporosisosteopeniainchildren02yearsofageasystematicreview
AT jaramillodiego revisitingtheradiographicassessmentofosteoporosisosteopeniainchildren02yearsofageasystematicreview