Evidence Hub

Assessment of fracture risk in women with eating disorders: The utility of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-Clinical cohort study

Jacob Frølich, L. A. Winkler, B. Abrahamsen, N. Bilenberg, A. Hermann, R. Støving

International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2020

344 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Eating disorders (EDs) are associated with decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fracture risk. The association between BMD and fracture risk in EDs is not well elucidated. We aimed to assess BMD in an ED cohort of patients with active disease and patients in remission, and to assess the predictive value of BMD on incidence of fractures.

METHOD

We included 344 female patients (median age 19, IQR 16; 24) referred to ED treatment. Later, patients were invited to follow-up including assessment of remission status and a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-scan. Information on fractures was obtained through the Danish National Registry of Patients.

RESULTS

Patients with current anorexia nervosa (AN) had significantly lower BMD compared to controls at lumbar spine (16% lower, p < .0001), femoral neck (18% lower, p < .0001), and total hip (23% lower, p < .0001). Recovered AN patients had higher BMD compared to those with current disease (p < .0001 for all measures), but lower BMD compared to controls at lumbar spine (p < .01) and hip (p < .001). BMD did not differ between BN patients and controls. In patients with active eating disorders not otherwise specified, BMD was lower only at the total hip (p < .005). We found no association between BMD and fracture risk.

CONCLUSION

We confirm that AN is associated with low BMD, whereas BN is not. Remission is associated with higher BMD compared to patients with active AN, but a deficit remains. We found no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 344 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free