原发性骨质疏松症患者与对照人群血清骨钙素水平比较的Meta分析

发布时间：2018-03-10 02:01

本文选题：骨钙素　切入点：骨转换标记物　出处：《中国骨质疏松杂志》2017年10期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：目的比较原发性骨质疏松症(osteoporosis,OP)患者与对照人群血清骨钙素(serum osteocalcin,s OC)水平。方法荟萃分析。检索CENTRAL、Pub Med和CNKI等国内外大型数据库,筛选关于骨质疏松症患者与对照人群s OC水平比较的病例对照研究,对纳入研究进行Meta分析,比较在不同性别及检测不同s OC分子片段的情况下原发性骨质疏松症患者与对照人群体内的s OC水平,以获得相关临床证据。结果共纳入22项女性研究(包括2906人)以及13项男性研究(包括1338人)。绝经后骨质疏松(postmenopausal osteoporosis,PMO)组与对照组相比s OC水平明显升高[95%置信区间(confidence interval,CI)为(1.59,5.84),P=0.0006],与PMO的高骨转换率相符。而男性原发性OP发病机制不同于PMO,OP组与对照组相比s OC水平无统计学差异[95%CI(-2.31,3.98),P=0.60],此结果可能与男性原发性OP骨代谢状态较为复杂且存在异质性有关。结论 PMO患者s OC水平升高,结果对于PMO具有较高的辅助诊断价值。男性原发性OP患者s OC水平变化情况仍有争议,综合分析结果与对照组无差异。s OC检测尚缺乏统一标准,本研究结论尚需高质量临床研究进一步验证。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the serum osteocalcinins (OC) levels in patients with idiopathic osteoporosis (OPO) and control group. Methods Meta-analysis was used to search the large databases of CENTRALLPU Pub Med and CNKI at home and abroad. A case-control study on the comparison of OC levels between patients with osteoporosis and a control group was selected, and Meta analysis was performed on the inclusion study. To compare the level of OC between patients with primary osteoporosis and control group with different sex and different fragments of OC molecule. Results in 22 female studies (including 2, 906) and 13 male studies (including 1, 338) and postmenopausal osteoporosis, the levels of OC were significantly higher [95% confidence interval] than in the control group. Confidence intervalency is 1.59 / 5.84 / P 0.0006, which is consistent with the high bone turnover rate of PMO. The pathogenesis of primary op in men is different from that in the control group. There is no significant difference in the level of OC between the two groups [95CI-2.31 ~ 3.98 P0. 60]. This result may be more complicated and more complicated than that of male primary op bone metabolism. Conclusion the level of OC in patients with PMO is higher than that in controls. Results the changes of OC level in male patients with primary op were still controversial, and there was no difference between the results of comprehensive analysis and that of the control group. The conclusion of this study needs to be further verified by high-quality clinical studies.
【作者单位】：中山大学附属第三医院脊柱外科;中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院院长办公室;
【分类号】：R580

【相似文献】