ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
Year : 2019 | Volume
: 23
| Issue : 2 | Page : 198-205 |
|
Bone mass in newborns assessed by DXA – A systematic review and meta-analysis
Rekha Ramot1, Garima Kachhawa2, Vidushi Kulshreshtha2, Shweta Varshney1, M Jeeva Sankar3, K Devasenathipathy4, V Sreenivas5, Rajesh Khadgawat1
1 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India 3 Department of Paediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India 4 Department of Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India 5 Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Correspondence Address:
Rajesh Khadgawat Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110 049 India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ijem.IJEM_681_18
|
|
Purpose: Peak bone mass - a key determinant of osteoporotic fractures result from bone accretion starting form intrauterine life to early adulthood. Optimal skeletal growth in-utero and infancy may offer protection against osteoporosis in adult life. We attempted to pool the data from available literature to get a consensus on average bone mass among healthy newborns (age ≤30 days after birth).
Methods: Systematic review was conducted (PRISMA guidelines) to generate pooled estimates of bone mass parameters at whole body (WB) and lumbar spine (LS), based on both fixed and random effect models of meta-analyses. Two investigators independently carried out a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase. Meta-regression was applied to further explore causes of heterogeneity.
Results: Out of a total 2703 studies, 2682 was excluded leaving 21 studies for final analysis. Thirteen studies reported bone mass by Hologic® and eight by Lunar®. The pooled WBBMC was 66.2g (95% CI 65.4 to 67.05 by fixed effect model, while the corresponding parameter for LS was 2.3g (95% CI 2.2 to 2.4). The subgroup and meta-regression analyses done for controlling potential confounders did not significantly affect heterogeneity.
Conclusion: We generated the pooled estimate of bone mass (WBBMC) among healthy newborn subjects. There was high degree of heterogeneity among studies.
|
|
|
|
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|