1998
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1212(199803/04)8:2<97::aid-oa412>3.0.co;2-u
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts

Age-dependent bone loss in the femur in a medieval population

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
51
16
11
8

Citation Types

8
73
1
2

Year Published

1999
1999
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
56
10
7
1

Relationship

2
72

Authors

Journals

citations

Cited by 74 publications

(84 citation statements)
references

References 43 publications

8
73
1
2
Order By: Relevance
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…The results for the metacarpal cortical thickness were weak, negative and non-significantly correlated with the femoral cortical thickness (r Z ÿ0.058). These results are similar to those of a previous study using medieval skeletons [29], whereby correlations between metacarpal and femoral cortical index were weak for both males and females. It is likely that these differences stem from the fact that femoral cortical bone morphology undergoes more complex changes throughout life in response to weight bearing compared to the non-weight bearing metacarpal cortical bone.…”
Section: Results
supporting
confidence: 91%
“…The effect of the combined male and female femoral cortical thickness measures owing to small sample sizes in the current study is likely to have contributed to the poor correlation with the metacarpal cortical thickness. However, given the poor relationships identified previously by Mays et al [29] for both males and females separately, the poor correlation in the present study cannot wholly be explained by the combined dataset. Femoral cortical bone loss with age does not occur in a linear fashion [6,18] which may also help to explain the poor result.…”
Section: Results
contrasting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…The results for the metacarpal cortical thickness were weak, negative and non-significantly correlated with the femoral cortical thickness (r Z ÿ0.058). These results are similar to those of a previous study using medieval skeletons [29], whereby correlations between metacarpal and femoral cortical index were weak for both males and females. It is likely that these differences stem from the fact that femoral cortical bone morphology undergoes more complex changes throughout life in response to weight bearing compared to the non-weight bearing metacarpal cortical bone.…”
Section: Results
supporting
confidence: 91%
“…The effect of the combined male and female femoral cortical thickness measures owing to small sample sizes in the current study is likely to have contributed to the poor correlation with the metacarpal cortical thickness. However, given the poor relationships identified previously by Mays et al [29] for both males and females separately, the poor correlation in the present study cannot wholly be explained by the combined dataset. Femoral cortical bone loss with age does not occur in a linear fashion [6,18] which may also help to explain the poor result.…”
Section: Results
contrasting
confidence: 86%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…In males, cortical bone in the femur is not associated with BMD neck . Female results are similar to the associations between cortical bone and BMD stated by Mays et al (1998), with a weaker association in males. Ives and Brickley (2005) reported a non-significant association between BMD neck and metacarpal cortical index in a pooled sample from both sexes.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 82%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Indeed, post-menopausal women are characterised by loss of trabecular bone at rates two-to three-fold greater than age-matched controls (Riggs, 1991). Similar results were reported in other studies (Garn, 1970;Ruff & Hayes, 1982, 1983Martin et al, 1985;Lees et al, 1993;Kneissel et al, 1994;Agarwal & Grynpas, 1996;Mays, 1996Mays, , 2000Mays et al, 1998;Brickley & Howell, 1999;McEwan et al, 2004). Different studies have investigated the issue of age in relation to osteoporosis, in contemporary (Levis & Altman, 1998) and in ancient populations (Brickley & Howell, 1999).…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 82%