Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

The assessment of bone health in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis; comparison of different imaging-based methods

Pediatric Rheumatology volume 22, Article number: 80 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Osteoporosis is increasingly being recognized in children, mostly secondary to systemic underlying conditions or medication. However, no imaging modality currently provides a full evaluation of bone health in children. We compared DXA, a radiographic bone health index (BHI (BoneXpert) and cone-beam CT for the assessment of low bone mass in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Methods

Data used in the present study was drawn from a large multicentre study including 228 children aged 4–16 years, examined between 2015 and 2020. All had a radiograph of the left hand, a DXA scan and a cone-beam CT of the temporomandibular joints within four weeks of each other. For the present study, we included 120 subjects, selected based on DXA BMD and BoneXpert BHI to secure values across the whole range to be tested.

Results

One hundred and twenty children (60.0% females) were included, mean age 11.6 years (SD 3.1 years). There was a strong correlation between the absolute values of BHI and BMD for both total body less head (TBLH) (r = 0.75, p < 0.001) and lumbar spine (L1-L4) (r = 0.77, p < 0.001). The correlation between BHI standard deviation score (SDS) and BMD TBLH Z-scores was weak (r = 0.34) but significant (0 = 0.001), varying from weak (r = 0.31) to moderate (r = 0.42) between the three study sites.

Categorizing BHI SDS and DXA BMD Z-scores on a 0–5 scale yielded a weak agreement between the two for both TBLH and LS, with w-kappa of 0.2, increasing to 0.3 when using quadratic weights. The agreement was notably higher for one of the three study sites as compared to the two others, particularly for spine assessment, yielding a moderate kappa value of 0.4 – 0.5.

For cone-beam CT, based on a 1–3 scale, 59 out of 94 left TMJ’s were scored as 1 and 31 as score 2 by the first observer vs. 87 and 7 by the second observer yielding a poor agreement (kappa 0.1).

Conclusions

Categorizing DXA LS and automated radiographic Z-scores on a 0–5 scale gave a weak to moderate agreement between the two methods, indicating that a hand radiograph might provide an adjuvant tool to DXA when assessing bone health children with JIA, given thorough calibration is performed.

Background

Osteoporosis is increasingly being recognized in children, mostly secondary to systemic underlying conditions or medications, such as inflammatory, hematological and oncological disorders, as well as malnutrition and immobilization [1, 2]. The diagnosis is based on a significant fracture history, and a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) Z-score < -2 standard deviations (SD), except for those presenting with a low-energy vertebral fracture in whom the fracture suffices [3]. Despite significant shortcomings, DXA is the most commonly used method for assessing bone mass in children, preferring the total body less head (TBLH) and lumbar spine (LS, 1-4) locations although alternative skeletal sites can be used when these are not feasible [2,3,4,5]. DXA-derived values for children are expressed as age-specific and sex-specific Z-scores. Normative paediatric data must be used for Z-score calculation, which are available for children older than 3 years for the TBLH, while LS measurements are available also for children aged <3 years [6,7,8,9].

DXA in children, with the assessment of areal bone mineral density (aBMD) is, however, flawed with biases. Firstly, DXA measurements underestimate BMD (in g/cm2) in children with short stature or growth /pubertal delay, thus, adjustment for bone age, or for skeletal size is mandatory. To adjust for skeletal size, volumetric BMD (vBMD or bone mineral apparent density [BMAD], in g/cm3) is calculated or BMD Z-scores are adjusted for height [10, 11] or for bone age [12] . Next, there is significant variation between DXA machines, more so for the LS and TBLH-locations than for hips [4]. And thirdly, the age- and sex-specific Z-score reference values available differ between different reference databases. Findings from a recent study showed that spine BMD Z-scores can vary by as much as 2 standard deviations (SD) depending on the normative database that is used to generate the Z-scores [13]. Moreover, DXA cannot differentiate between cortical and trabecular bone, hampering comparison to alternative methods.

Another imaging based technique, peripheral QCT (pQCT), assess cortical and trabecular bone separately, providing information on bone geometry not assessible with DXA [14]. Its main limitations are related to the need of proper positioning of the patient to achieve reproducibility, and to movements during the scan resulting in artefacts. Whether or not pQCT measurements adequately refect the whole skeleton, including the spine, is still under debate. Again, reference data are available, but have their limitations [15].

Except for a radiograph of the lateral spine to identify silent vertebral fractures, the role of radiography in the diagnosis of osteoporosis has been questioned, in part due to suboptimal image quality following the introduction of digital imaging. However, recent advances in detector technology has improved image quality significantly. Moreover, evaluation of bone structure has been, and still is an important part of the radiological assessment in a variety of diseases, such as skeletal dysplasias, metabolic and inflammatory disease, amongst others [16]. In 2009, an automated, digitized radiography (DXR)-based method for assessing peripheral bone geometry and density was introduced, measuring a cortical index (Bone Health Index, BHI) by hand radiographs in children over the age of 2-3 years [17, 18]. The method was recently extended down to newborns, based on data from 410 healthy children born in Paris in 1955 [19]. Although BHI assesses metacarpal cortex alone, while DXA assesses cortex and trabecular bone, several studies have demonstrated an association between the BHI and BMD as measured by DXA [20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. In a recent systematic review, seven papers compared digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) with DXA, of which four found a moderate to strong degree of correlation [27]. However, two studies found a poor correlation, underscoring the need for further research.

In adults, panoramic radiography and CBCT have been used for the assessment of bone health. The mandibular cortical index (MCI), developed for panoramic radiography in 1994 by Klemetti et al [28], is a qualitative index assessing the appearances of the mandibular endostium [29]. Two recent systematic reviews, one based on panoramic radiography [29] and one on CBCT [30], concluded that both methods might represent auxillary tools for identifying postmenopausal females at risk of low bone mineral density. In children no similar studies are published.

Irrespective of the underlying cause, the radiographic appearances of osteoporosis are those of increased radiolucency and cortical thinning [1, 31, 32]. In young children the appearances of the zone of provisional calcification (ZPC) abutting the metaphysis, may provide additional information [33, 34].

The effective radiation dose for each of the imaging based methods discussed in this paper is low as compared to the annual background radiation dose of 3-5 milliSievert (mSv), ranging from 0.001-0.003 mSv for DXA (https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q13693.html), 0.06mSv for a hand radiograph (https://hps.org/physicians/documents/Doses_from_Medical_X-Ray_Procedures.pdf) to 0.02-0.5 mSv for a CBCT [35].

Routine follow-up of children with JIA often includes assessment of bone health [36]. We aimed to compare different techniques for the assessment of osteoporosis/low bone mass, namely DXA (WBLH, LS), bone health index (BHI) as assessed by the program BoneXpert, subjective assessment of a left hand radiograph (cortical thickness 2-4th metacarpals, conspicuity of the zone of provitional alcification (ZPC) on a 0-2 scale, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) of the mandible.

Methods

Data used in the present study was drawn from a large multicentre study, the NorJIA study (www.norjia.com), including 228 children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) aged 4-16 years, examined between March 2015 and November 2020. As per protocol, all had a radiograph of the left hand and wrist, a DXA scan and a CBCT of the TMJs within 4 weeks of each other. For the present study, we included 120 subjects (>99% Caucasian) selected based on DXA BMD or BHI values, securing values across the whole range to be tested (balanced dataset).

The DXA scans were performed on a Lunar iDXA (Bergen, Trondheim) or Lunar Progidy (Tromsø) (both GE Lunar Corporation, Madison, WI). Age- and sex specific BMD Z-scores for posterior-anterior LS (L1-L4) and total body less head (TBLH) were calculated using Lunar iDXA enCore versjon 17 software and normative reference databases in accordance with the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) pediatric official position [11]. Analyses were performed using bone-age adjusted BMD-values for children with a growth delay, defined as skeletal age < -2SD for age/gender, as assessed by the program BoneXpert [11, 37].

The radiographs of the left hand were taken with either a Acroma Triathlon T3 Precision system and a CXDI-810CW Canon detector with a pixel size of 125 µm at UNN; Carestream DRX evolution+ (USA) or Philips Digital Diagnost with a Canon detector in Bergen and Philips Digital Diagnost C 90 system with a SkyPlate detector, pixel size 148 µm at St Olavs. The focus-detector-distance was 115 cm and the focal spot size was 0.6mm at all three sites. All radiographs were exported to the program BoneXpert (Standalone version 3.2.1.12) Visiana, Holte, Denmark) and bone health index (BHI) and bone age (adjusted for sex and ethnicity) were registered together with demographic data. The formula used is BHI = π × (1 − T/W)/(LW)0.33. T is defined as the cortical thickness of the three middle metacarpals, W is the metacarpal width, and L is the bone length. The BoneXpert automatically compares the BHI to a Caucasian reference population with the same sex and converts it to a Z-score adjusted for bone age, the BHI SDS [38].

In addition, cortical thickness, based on metacarpals 2-4, was scored subjectively on a continuous -4 to +4 scale (with one decimal; representing a “BHI-SDS equivalent”), by two experienced paediatric radiologists in consensus (>30 and 13 years of experience in pediatric radiology, respectively), knowing sex and bone age (Fig. 1a-c). We also scored subjective impression of bone structure (normal bone mass, suspected low bone mass or low bone mass), irregularity of the cortex (yes/no) and conspicuity/visibility of the zone of provisional calcification, radius only (ZPC) on a 0-2 scale (Fig. 2a-c).

Fig. 1
figure 1

a-c Radiographs of the wrist in 3 females aged 10-11 years. Cortical thickness based on metacarpals 2-4 (arrows) was assessed using BoneXpert BHI Standard deviation score (SDS), classified on a 0-5 scale, exemplified by (a) SDS of +1.8, (b) SDS of 0 and (c) SDS of -2.4

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

a-c Radiographs of the wrist in 3 females aged 6-7 years. Conspicuity/visibility of the zone of provisional calcification in radius only (ZPC) was scored as (a) not visible, (b) moderately  visible or (c) mildly  visible

Full size image

Before scoring was performed, an atlas of left-hand radiographs with BHI varying from -4 to +4, and for males and females separately, was established. High resolution PACS screens were used for the assessment of radiographs.

CBCT volumes of the 120 subjects were selected and randomly coded. Image acquisition were performed employing either of three CBCT scanners with machine settings kVp / mAs / field of view (mm) / voxel dimension (isotropic, mm): 3D Accuitomo 170 (Morita Mfg Corp, Kyoto, Japan) 85 / 175 / 40*40*40 / 0.08; Promax 3D (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) 90 / 13.6 / 200*200*60 / 0.40; or Scanora 3D (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) 90 / 45 / 60*60*60 / 0.13, with the participants positioned in the Frankfort plane horizontal with their teeth in maximal intercuspal position.

Each CBCT data set was assessed independently by two specialists with more than 10 years of experience in interpreting TM-joints; one in medical radiology (OA) and the other in dento-maxillofacial radiology (Xie). Viewing took place under standardised conditions with dimmed light. The screen display was selected to one of the monitors default settings, DICOM mode. The observers were allowed to adjust the grey level, and contrast according to their individual preferences during viewing.

Multiplanar reconstructions were performed in the following steps: first, the axial and coronal views were adjusted to get an oblique sagittal view trough the mandibular neck. Next, the sagittal view was further orientated to be tangential to the posterior border of the mandibular neck (Fig. 3a). Finally, the cortical bone in the region of the neck was assessed on the axial cross-sectional images and classified into one of the three categories according to Klemetti index/mandibular cortical index [28], which was developed for panoramic radiography, as C1: endosteal margin is even and sharp; C2: endosteal margin presents lacunar resorption or cortical residues on one or both sides, or C3: the cortical layer is clearly porous, with heavy endosteal cortical residues (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3
figure 3

a-b Multiplanar reconstruction of collum-corrected views (a). Examples of axial cross-sectional images from 3 cases representing C1-C3 (b)

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Continuous data were presented as means (± SD), ordinal data as medians (ranges) and dichotomous data as proportions. Correlations between DXA and DXR were analysed using Pearson correlation coefficient, and statistical significance was tested using Chi squared, or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. For Pearson correlation coefficient, the following interpretation was used: 0.00-0.10: negligible correlation, 0.10-0.39: weak correlation, 0.40-0.69: moderate correlation, 0.70-0.89: strong correlation and 0.90-1.100: very strong correlation [39]. For the assessment of agreement between the BHI SDS as measured by the program BoneXpert and the BHI SDS-equivalent as assessed subjectively, the values were categorized into 5 scores from ≤ -2 to > 2 at intervals of 1. Agreement was analysed using a simple or a weighted Cohen’s Kappa coefficient with 95% confidence intervals. A kappa score of <0.2 was considered poor, 0-0.20 slight, 0.21–0.40 fair, 0.41–0.60 moderate, 0.61–0.80 substantial and 0.81–1.00 almost perfect [40]. A significance level of 0.05 was decided a priori and all the reported p values are two-tailed. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 28.

Ethics

The main study (Norwegian JIA Study (NorJIA), NCT number NCT03904459 in www.clinicaltrials.gov.) was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee; REK VEST no 2012/542, and written informed consent was obtained from each participant and/or their caregiver, according to national guidelines. Data was collected and stored according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Results

A total of 120 children (72 (60.0%) females) with a diagnosis JIA were included, mean age 11.6 years (SD 3.1 years), range 4.9 -16.4 years, of whom 109 also had a CBCT of the TMJs.

DXA vs. automated BoneXpert BHI

There was a strong correlation between the absolute values of BHI and BMD for both TBLH (r = 0.75, p<0.001) and LS (r = 0.77, p<0.001). The correlation between BoneXpert BHI SDS and DXA TBLH Z-scores was weak to moderate, but significant (0=0.001), with r= 0.34, varying from 0.31 to 0.42 between the three study sites. Similar, there was a weak to moderate correlation between the BoneXpert BHI SDS and the DXA LS Z-score, with a correlation coefficient of 0.36 (p<0.001), varying between 0.26 and 0.46.

When categorizing the BoneXpert BHI SDS and DXA BMD Z-scores on a 0-5 scale, there was a weak agreement between the two for LS (w-kappa = 0.2 (0.1-0.3), increasing to 0.3 (0.2-0.5) when using quadratic weights) (Table 1). Similar, for TBLH, the agreement was weak with a w-kappa of 0.2 (0.1-0.3) using linear, and 0.3 (0.1-0.5) using quadratic weights. Interrestingly, the agreement was notably higher for one of the three study sites as compared to the two others, particularly for spine assessment, yielding a moderate kappa value of 0.4 – 0.5 (Table 2).

Table 1 Agreement between an automated BHI SDS as assessed by BoneXpert, and DXA BMD (L1-L4) Z-score. Both categorized on a 0–5 scale, from < -2 to ≥ 2, at intervals of 1
Full size table
Table 2 Agreement between DXA BMD Z-scores and Bone Health Index SDS (categorized on a 0–5 scale) for each of the three study sites
Full size table

Radiogrammetry

Intra-observer agreement for the assessment of a “Subjective BHI-equivalent”

All 120 children had a radiograph of the left hand. When based on a 0-5 score, the intra-observer agreement for assessment of a “subjective BHI-equivalent” was good, with a w-kappa-value of 0.6 (95%CI= 0.4-0.7).

Of 120 hand radiographs, the cortex was judged to be irregular in 26 examinations on either of the two scorings, yielding a moderate intra-observer agreement (kappa-value 0.5 (95%CI= 0.3-0.7). The zone of provisional calcification (ZPC) could be assessed on 91 hand radiographs in which the physis remained open, with a good intra-observer agreement (w-kappa value 0.6 (95%CI=0.4-0.7) (Table 3).

Table 3 Conspicuity of the zone of provisional calcification (ZPC) on the distal radius, assessment based on 120 left hand radiographs in 120 children (72 female) with a diagnosis of JIA, aged 5–16 years of age, of which 91 was assessable
Full size table

Agreement for subjective assessment of low bone mass could not be analysed due to small numbers.

BoneXpert BHI vs. a “Subjective BHI equivalent”

Based on a 0-5 score, there was a moderate to good agreement between BHI SDS and subjective BHI SDS (w-kappa = 0.5 (95%CI 0.3-0.6), increasing to 0.6 (0.5-0.7) when using quadratic weights). Seven out of the 9 cases judged to have a BHI SDS of ≤ -2 on BoneXpert were judged to have negative values subjectively, of which all were lower than -1 (Table 4).

Table 4 Agreement between BHI SDS as assessed by BoneXpert and a subjective assessment, both based on a 0–5 score, from ≤ -2 to ≥ 2 at intervals of 1. 120 children and adolescents between 5 and 16 years of age
Full size table

Associations

There were no significant associations between irregular cortex and BoneXpert BHI score on a 0-5 scale (pearsons chi p=0.424), nor ZPC (p=0.272) or between irregular cortex and DXA BMD Z-scores on a 0-5 scale (p=0.209 and p=0.624 for TBLH and LS, respectively).

CBCT scores – interobserver agreement

109 of the 120 subjects had a CBCT of the TMJs performed, of which 100 left- and 94 right sided scans were acceptable for diagnostics, and thus included in further analysis. Based on a 1-3 scale, 59 out of 94 left TMJ’s were scored as 1 and 31 as score 2 by the first observer vs 87 and 7 by the second observer yielding a poor agreement (kappa value of 0,1).

Discussion

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis are routinely monitored throughout childhood and adolescence, thus, reducing the number of visits and types of examinations is important to minimise the total burdon for these patients. As for the assessment of bone health, we found a strong correlation for the absolute DXR and DXA values (TBLH and LS), but only a weak to moderate, but significant correlation for their z-values.

Categorizing the DXA LS and automated BHI-Z-scores on a 0-5 scale gave a weak to moderate agreement between the two methods, indicating that a hand radiograph might provide an adjunctive tool to DXA when assessing bone health, given thorough calibration is performed. Moreover, assessment of a subjective BHI equivalent performed well as compared to BoneXpert.

Our results compare fairly well to those of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, concluding that no current imaging modality provides a full evaluation of bone health in children and young adults [27]. The authors identified a total of seven studies comparing DXR and DXA, of which four found a moderate to strong correlation between the two methods (Z-scores, correlation coefficient 0.71), while corresponding figures for DXA vs ultrasound and DXA vs CT were 0.57 and 0.57, respectively [27]. However, in two of the studies the correlation was poor for the Z-scores although the absolute values correlated well. Similarly, our study showed lower correlation, although significant, for the Z-scores as compared to the absolute values. We agree with Shalof and colleagues, suggesting that the lower correlation in part might be due to different reference populations used for DXA and DXR-z-values. Moreover, although all 3 centers used Lunar machines, we speculate that inter-machine differences might have played a role, since the correlation between DXA and DXR appeared to vary across the three study sites.

For the current study, we used bone-age adjusted values for DXA BMD Z-scores in children with growth delay, defined as skeletal age < -2SD for age/gender. Although current understanding is that when interpreting paediatric bone density results, it is preferable to use a size-adjustment method, such as BMAD or a height-adjusted Z-score [11], consensus regarding the most appropriate size-adjustment technique has yet to be established. For this reason the use of age-adjusted BMD is still recommended by ISCD [6, 41].

In sum, we agree with the authors of the systematic review, concluding that DXR may provide results close to those obtained from DXA regarding measuring bone mineral density and might reflect the ability of DXR to be used as a reliable method for evaluating bone density in children and young people [27]. Moreover, the ability of DXR to measure cortical thickness, metacarpal length and width, representing volumetric BMD as opposed to DXA, being a 2D technique, might prove helpful.

Interrestingly, we demonstrated a good intrarater agreement for subjective scoring of a BHI-equivalent and a moderate agreement between the subjective score and the DXR-score, supporting the role of radiographic features as a trigger for more comprehensive bone health testing.

Subjective assessment of an irregular cortex on a 0-1 scale performed well, as did assessment of the zone of provisional ossification on a 0-2 scale. However, we found no significant associations between these two markers and TBLH / LS scores, nor BHI-scores, thus, their clinical value remains unclear.

As for assessment of bone health using CBCT, despite a thorough calibration between observers, the poor interobserver agreement using a 1-3 scale is rather disappointing. An explanation might be that the observers have chosen different images for their assessment, with varying appearances of the bone strudture. The results underscore the need for standardization and further research. The transferability of the classification system suggested by Klemetti is thus unclear [28]. The standardized and multiplanar acquisition of CBCT could open for automated assessment of bone health in the mandible though, but the method has to be tested in a separate study.

Being localised imaging modalities, both CBCT of the TMJs and a hand radiograph might be less suitable for patients with severe involvement of these specific joints. This caveat has to some extent been forseen by the program BoneXpert, rejecting hand images showing abnormal bone morphology such as severe destructive change. On the other hand, decreased BHI and delayed bone maturation has been reported in JIA patients with relatively mild disease, and no correlation with JADAS 10 score, reflecting a generalised poor bone health [42].

Conclusions

Categorizing the DXA LS and automated DXR-Z-scores on a 0-5 scale gave a weak to moderate agreement between the two methods, indicating that a hand radiograph might provide an adjunctive tool to DXA when assessing bone health, given thorough calibration is performed. Moreover, assessment of a subjective BHI equivalent performed well.

Availability of data and materials

Data will be available on special request.

Abbreviations

DXA:

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

BHI:

Bone health index

BMD:

Bone mineral density

CBCT:

Cone-beam computed tomography

TBLH:

Total body less head

LS:

Lumbar spine

SDS:

Standard deviation score

ZPC:

Zone of provisional calcification

TMJ:

Temporomandibular joint

References

  1. Saraff V, Hogler W. Endocrinology and adolescence: osteoporosis in children: diagnosis and management. Eur J Endocrinol. 2015;173(6):R185–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ward LM, Weber DR, Munns CF, Hogler W, Zemel BS. A contemporary view of the definition and diagnosis of osteoporosis in children and adolescents. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(5):e2088–97.

  3. Weber DR, Boyce A, Gordon C, Hogler W, Kecskemethy HH, Misra M, et al. The utility of DXA assessment at the forearm, proximal femur, and lateral distal femur, and vertebral fracture assessment in the pediatric population: 2019 ISCD official position. J Clin Densitom. 2019;22(4):567–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Zemel BS, Wasserman H, Kelly A, Fan B, Shepherd J, Lappe J, et al. Intermachine differences in DXA measurements vary by skeletal site, and impact the assessment of low bone density in children. Bone. 2020;141:115581.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Schousboe JT, Shepherd JA, Bilezikian JP, Baim S. Executive summary of the 2013 International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference on bone densitometry. J Clin Densitom. 2013;16(4):455–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Crabtree NJ, Shaw NJ, Bishop NJ, Adams JE, Mughal MZ, Arundel P, et al. Amalgamated reference data for size-adjusted bone densitometry measurements in 3598 children and young adults-the ALPHABET study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(1):172–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kalkwarf HJ, Zemel BS, Gilsanz V, Lappe JM, Horlick M, Oberfield S, et al. The bone mineral density in childhood study: bone mineral content and density according to age, sex, and race. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(6):2087–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zemel BS, Kalkwarf HJ, Gilsanz V, Lappe JM, Oberfield S, Shepherd JA, et al. Revised reference curves for bone mineral content and areal bone mineral density according to age and sex for black and non-black children: results of the bone mineral density in childhood study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(10):3160–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Manousaki D, Rauch F, Chabot G, Dubois J, Fiscaletti M, Alos N. Pediatric data for dual X-ray absorptiometric measures of normal lumbar bone mineral density in children under 5 years of age using the lunar prodigy densitometer. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2016;16(3):247–55.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kindler JM, Lappe JM, Gilsanz V, Oberfield S, Shepherd JA, Kelly A, et al. Lumbar spine bone mineral apparent density in children: results from the bone mineral density in childhood study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(4):1283–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crabtree NJ, Arabi A, Bachrach LK, Fewtrell M, El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Kecskemethy HH, et al. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry interpretation and reporting in children and adolescents: the revised 2013 ISCD Pediatric Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17(2):225–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Annexstad EJ, Bollerslev J, Westvik J, Myhre AG, Godang K, Holm I, et al. The role of delayed bone age in the evaluation of stature and bone health in glucocorticoid treated patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Int J Pediatr Endocrinol. 2019;2019:4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ma J, Siminoski K, Alos N, Halton J, Ho J, Lentle B, et al. The choice of normative pediatric reference database changes spine bone mineral density Z-scores but not the relationship between bone mineral density and prevalent vertebral fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(3):1018–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ciancia S, van Rijn RR, Hogler W, Appelman-Dijkstra NM, Boot AM, Sas TCJ, et al. Osteoporosis in children and adolescents: when to suspect and how to diagnose it. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181(7):2549–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lalayiannis AD, Fewtrell M, Biassoni L, Silva S, Goodman N, Shroff R, et al. Studying bone mineral density in young people: The complexity of choosing a pQCT reference database. Bone. 2021;143:115713.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lachman RS. Taybi and Lachman’s radiology of syndromes, metabolic disorders and skeletal dysplasias. St.Louis: Mosby; 2006. p. 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thodberg HH, Bottcher J, Lomholt J, Kreiborg S, Wolf G, Pfeil A. A new implementation of digital X-ray radiogrammetry and reference curves of four indices of cortical bone for healthy European adults. Arch Osteoporos. 2016;11:17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martin DD, Heckmann C, Jenni OG, Ranke MB, Binder G, Thodberg HH. Metacarpal thickness, width, length and medullary diameter in children–reference curves from the First Zurich Longitudinal Study. OsteoporosInt. 2011;22(5):1525–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thodberg HH, Thrane P, Martin D. Reference values of cortical thickness, bone width, and Bone Health Index in metacarpals of children from age 0 y, as determined with an extension of the fully automated BoneXpert bone age method. International Conference of Children's Bone Health (ICCBH); Salzburg 2019.

  20. Leijten AD, Hampsink B, Janssen M, Klein WM, Draaisma JMT. Can digital X-ray radiogrammetry be an alternative for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis of secondary low bone quality in children? Eur J Pediatr. 2019;178(9):1433–41.

  21. van Rijn RR, Boot A, Wittenberg R, van der Sluis IM, van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, Lequin MH, et al. Direct X-ray radiogrammetry versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: assessment of bone density in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and growth hormone deficiency. Pediatr Radiol. 2006;36(3):227–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schundeln MM, Marschke L, Bauer JJ, Hauffa PK, Schweiger B, Fuhrer-Sakel D, et al. A piece of the puzzle: the bone health index of the BoneXpert software reflects cortical bone mineral density in pediatric and adolescent patients. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151936.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Nusman CM, Ording Muller LS, Hemke R, Doria AS, Avenarius D, Tzaribachev N, et al. Current Status of Efforts on Standardizing Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Report from the OMERACT MRI in JIA Working Group and Health-e-Child. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(1):239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Neelis E, Rijnen N, Sluimer J, Olieman J, Rizopoulos D, Wijnen R, et al. Bone health of children with intestinal failure measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and digital X-ray radiogrammetry. Clin Nutr. 2018;37(2):687–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Alshamrani K, Messina F, Bishop N, Offiah AC. Estimating bone mass in children: can bone health index replace dual energy x-ray absorptiometry? Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49(3):372–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leijten AD, Hampsink B, Janssen M, Klein WM, Draaisma JMT. Can digital X-ray radiogrammetry be an alternative for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis of secondary low bone quality in children? Eur J Pediatr. 2019;178(9):1433–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Shalof H, Dimitri P, Shuweihdi F, Offiah AC. Which skeletal imaging modality is best for assessing bone health in children and young adults compared to DXA? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone. 2021;150: 116013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Klemetti E, Kolmakov S, Kroger H. Pantomography in assessment of the osteoporosis risk group. Scand J Dent Res. 1994;102(1):68–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Munhoz L, Morita L, Nagai AY, Moreira J, Arita ES. Mandibular cortical index in the screening of postmenopausal at low mineral density risk: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021;50(4):20200514.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Poiana IR, Dobre R, Popescu RI, Pituru SM, Bucur A. Utility of cone-beam computed tomography in the detection of low bone mass-a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):5890.

  31. Guglielmi G, Muscarella S, Leone A, Peh WC. Imaging of metabolic bone diseases. Radiol Clin North Am. 2008;46(4):735–54 vi.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Guglielmi G, Muscarella S, Bazzocchi A. Integrated imaging approach to osteoporosis: state-of-the-art review and update. Radiographics. 2011;31(5):1343–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Oestreich AE. Distinguishing child abuse fractures from rickets. Pediatr Radiol. 2018;48(3):305–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Oestreich AE. Growth of the Pediatric Skeleton. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kadesjo N, Benchimol D, Falahat B, Nasstrom K, Shi XQ. Evaluation of the effective dose of cone beam CT and multislice CT for temporomandibular joint examinations at optimized exposure levels. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(8):20150041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Di Marcello F, Di Donato G, d'Angelo DM, Breda L, Chiarelli F. Bone health in children with rheumatic disorders: focus on molecular mechanisms, diagnosis, and management. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(19):5725.

  37. Morris EB, Shelso J, Smeltzer MP, Thomas NA, Karimova EJ, Li CS, et al. The use of bone age for bone mineral density interpretation in a cohort of pediatric brain tumor patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38(12):1285–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Thodberg HH, van Rijn RR, Tanaka T, Martin DD, Kreiborg S. A paediatric bone index derived by automated radiogrammetry. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21(8):1391–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gordon CM, Leonard MB, Zemel BS, International Society for Clinical D. 2013 Pediatric Position Development Conference: executive summary and reflections. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17(2):219–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Twilt M, Pradsgaard D, Spannow AH, Horlyck A, Heuck C, Herlin T. Joint cartilage thickness and automated determination of bone age and bone health in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2017;15(1):63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is part of the multicenter NorJIA Study (The Norwegian JIA Study – Temporo-mandibular Involvement, Oral Health, Uveitis, Bone Health and Quality of Life in Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA)). NorJIA is a collaboration among universities (University of Bergen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, The Arctic University of Norway), university hospitals (Haukeland University Hospital, St. Olav’s Hospital, University Hospital of North Norway) and oral health centers (Oral Health Centre of Expertise in Western Norway-Vestland, Oral Health Centre of Expertise in Mid-Norway, Public Dental Health Service Competence Centre of Northern Norway) in Bergen, Trondheim and Tromsø.

Funding

Open access funding provided by UiT The Arctic University of Norway (incl University Hospital of North Norway) The work was funded by grants from Health North (number SFP1229-15), Tromsø, Norway.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Paediatric Radiology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway

    Thomas Augdal, Pia Zadig & Karen Rosendahl

  2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

    Thomas Augdal, Pia Zadig & Karen Rosendahl

  3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Oskar Angenete

  4. Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Oskar Angenete

  5. Department of Paediatrics, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Anette Lundestad

  6. Department of Paediatrics, and Research Group for Child and Adolescent Health, Department of Clinical Medicine, University Hospital of North Norway, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

    Ellen Nordal

  7. Department of Clinical Dentistry, The Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Xieqi Shi

  8. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden

    Xieqi Shi

Authors
  1. Thomas Augdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oskar Angenete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pia Zadig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anette Lundestad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ellen Nordal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xieqi Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Karen Rosendahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Thomas Augdal: Scored the radiographs, contributed to data registration, establishment of an atlas, analysis and discussions. Oskar Angenete: scored the CBCT’s. Pia Zadig: contributed to discussions. Anette Lundestad: contributed to analysis of the DXA-scans. Ellen Nordal: recruited patients with JIA, contributed to discussions. Xieqi Shi: conseptualised the scoring of, and scored the CBCTs. Karen Rosendahl: Conseptualised the study, scored the radiographs, contributed to data registration, establishment of an atlas, analysis and discussions, drafted the initial version of the paper. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Rosendahl.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The main study (Norwegian JIA Study (NorJIA), NCT number NCT03904459 in www.clinicaltrials.gov.) was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee; REK VEST no 2012/542, and written informed consent was obtained from each participant and/or their caregiver, according to national guidelines. Data was collected and stored according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Consent for publication

Granted by all authors.

Competing interests

There are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Augdal, T., Angenete, O., Zadig, P. et al. The assessment of bone health in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis; comparison of different imaging-based methods. Pediatr Rheumatol 22, 80 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12969-024-01018-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12969-024-01018-7

Keywords

Pediatric Rheumatology

ISSN: 1546-0096