本研究旨在评估使用多回波化学位移编码MRI测量骨髓中质子密度脂肪分数(PDFF)与骨质疏松症之间的相关性。评估其作为骨质疏松症生物标志物的有效性。由两名独立研究人员使用Cochrane进行了系统评价,PubMed,EMBASE,和截至2023年12月的WebofScience数据库。使用Cochrane偏差风险工具和医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)清单评估质量评估。分析了14项涉及1495名患者的研究。荟萃分析显示,骨质疏松/骨质减少组与正常对照组之间的PDFF值存在显着差异。平均差11.04(95%CI:9.17~12.92,Z=11.52,P<0.00001)。通过MRI测量PDFF显示出作为骨质疏松症生物标志物的潜力,并可能作为骨质疏松症的危险因素。这一见解为未来的诊断和治疗策略开辟了新的途径,有可能改善骨质疏松症管理和患者护理。
目的:本研究旨在评估使用多回波化学位移编码MRI测量骨髓中质子密度脂肪分数(PDFF)与骨质疏松症之间的相关性,评估其作为骨质疏松症生物标志物的有效性。
方法:这项系统评价是由两名独立的研究人员使用Cochrane进行的,PubMed,EMBASE,和截至2023年12月的WebofScience数据库。使用Cochrane偏差风险工具和医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)清单评估质量评估。
结果:分析了14项研究,涉及1495名患者。荟萃分析显示,骨质疏松/骨质减少组与正常对照组之间的PDFF值存在显着差异。a(MD=11.04,95%CI:9.17~12.92,Z=11.52,P<0.00001)。亚组分析表明,诊断方法,性别,回声长度对PDFF-骨质疏松症相关性无显著影响.
结论:通过MRI进行的PDFF测量显示出作为骨质疏松症生物标志物的潜力,并可能成为骨质疏松症的危险因素。这一见解为未来的诊断和治疗策略开辟了新的途径,有可能改善骨质疏松症管理和患者护理。
This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between measuring proton-density fat fraction (PDFF) in bone marrow using multi-echo chemical shift-encoded
MRI and osteoporosis, assessing its effectiveness as a biomarker for osteoporosis. A systematic review was conducted by two independent researchers using Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to December 2023. Quality assessments were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist. Fourteen studies involving 1495 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in PDFF values between the osteoporosis/osteopenia group and the normal control group, with a mean difference of 11.04 (95% CI: 9.17 to 12.92, Z=11.52, P < 0.00001). Measuring PDFF via
MRI shows potential as an osteoporosis biomarker and may serve as a risk factor for osteoporosis. This insight opens new avenues for future diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, potentially improving osteoporosis management and patient care.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the correlation between measuring proton-density fat fraction (PDFF) in bone marrow using multi-echo chemical shift-encoded
MRI and osteoporosis, evaluating its effectiveness as a biomarker for osteoporosis.
METHODS: This systematic review was carried out by two independent researchers using Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to December 2023. Quality assessments were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 1495 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in PDFF values between the osteoporosis/osteopenia group and the normal control group, with a (MD = 11.04, 95% CI: 9.17 to 12.92, Z = 11.52, P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses indicated that diagnostic methods, gender, and echo length did not significantly impact the PDFF-osteoporosis association.
CONCLUSIONS: PDFF measurement via
MRI shows potential as an osteoporosis biomarker and may serve as a risk factor for osteoporosis. This insight opens new avenues for future diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, potentially improving osteoporosis management and patient care.