Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Clin Cases. Jun 6, 2020; 8(11): 2150-2161
Published online Jun 6, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i11.2150
Published online Jun 6, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i11.2150
Table 1 Comparison of the general data and vitamin D concentrations between the study and control groups
Group | n | Age (yr) | Sex (M/F) | Vitamin D (ng/mL) |
Study | 184 | 57.62 ± 13.79 | 49/135 | 13.76 ± 7.15 |
Control | 104 | 56.52 ± 13.66 | 25/79 | 20.12 ± 7.59 |
t (c2) | 0.656 | 0.234 | 7.085 | |
P value | 0.512 | 0.629 | 0.000 |
Table 2 Comparison of the percentage of vitamin D concentration between the study and control groups
Vitamin D level | Study group (n = 184), n (%) | Control group (n = 104), n (%) | c2 | P value |
< 10 | 55 (29.9) | 1 (1.0) | 35.502 | 0.000 |
10-20 | 99 (53.8) | 60 (57.7) | 0.406 | 0.524 |
20-30 | 25 (13.6) | 33 (31.7) | 13.600 | 0.000 |
≥ 30 | 5 (2.7) | 10 (9.6) | 6.404 | 0.011 |
Table 3 Comparison of vitamin D concentrations between the normal bone mineral density group, reduced bone mineral density group, and osteoporosis group
Table 4 The diagnostic value of vitamin D concentration on bone mass reduction and osteoporosis
Group | n | AUC | SD | P value | 95%CI |
Reduced BMD | 74 | 0.487 | 0.056 | 0.820 | 0.379-0.596 |
Osteoporosis | 55 | 0.417 | 0.055 | 0.134 | 0.309-0.525 |
Table 5 Relationship between age groups and bone mineral density in patients with chronic pain
Age group (yr) | n | Normal BMD (%) | Reduced BMD (%) | Osteoporosis (%) | c2 | P value |
< 45 | 32 | 27 (49.09) | 4 (5.41) | 1 (1.82) | ||
45-64 | 86 | 24 (43.63) | 43 (58.11) | 19 (34.55) | 58.933 | 0.000 |
≥ 65 | 66 | 4 (7.27) | 27 (36.49) | 35 (63.64) | ||
Total | 184 | 55 (100) | 74 (100) | 55 (100) |
Table 6 Comparison of vitamin D concentrations between different age groups in the study group
Age group (yr) | n | Vitamin D (ng/mL) |
< 45 | 32 | 13.23 ± 5.58 |
45-64 | 86 | 1.64 ± 7.06 |
≥ 65 | 66 | 14.15 ± 8.00 |
F | 0.189 | |
P value | 0.28 |
Table 7 Univariate analysis of various factors in the normal and reduced bone mineral density groups of the study group
Factor | Reduced BMD (%) | Normal BMD (%) | c2 | P value |
Age (yr) | 37.533 | 0.000 | ||
< 45 | 4 | 27 | ||
45-64 | 43 | 24 | ||
≥ 65 | 27 | 4 | ||
Sex | 23.334 | 0.000 | ||
M | 19 | 20 | ||
F | 55 | 35 | ||
Ethnicity | 8.407 | 0.038 | ||
Tibetan | 3 | 10 | ||
Han | 60 | 37 | ||
Hui | 7 | 7 | ||
Others | 4 | 1 | ||
BMI | 2.302 | 0.512 | ||
< 18.5 | 3 | 4 | ||
18.5-22.9 | 38 | 33 | ||
24-27 | 22 | 11 | ||
≥ 28 | 11 | 7 | ||
Occupation | 0.144 | 0.704 | ||
Farmer | 18 | 15 | ||
Non-farmer | 56 | 40 | ||
Vitamin D | 1.323 | 0.724 | ||
< 10 | 21 | 15 | ||
10-20 | 38 | 32 | ||
20-30 | 13 | 6 | ||
≥ 30 | 2 | 2 | ||
PTH | 7.503 | 0.023 | ||
< 15 | 1 | 0 | ||
15-65 | 41 | 43 | ||
> 65 | 32 | 12 | ||
Ca | 21.396 | 0.000 | ||
< 2.2 | 39 | 26 | ||
2.2-2.7 | 17 | 29 | ||
> 2.7 | 18 | 0 | ||
P | 1.312 | 0.519 | ||
< 0.85 | 5 | 3 | ||
0.85-1.51 | 61 | 49 | ||
> 1.51 | 8 | 3 | ||
Altitude | 2.988 | 0.224 | ||
1500-2500 | 58 | 40 | ||
2500-3500 | 15 | 11 | ||
3500-5800 | 1 | 4 |
Table 8 Binary logistic analysis of multiple factors for bone mass reduction
Factor | B value | SD (S.E.) | Wald value | Variance | P value | OR value | OR, 95%CI |
Age | 2.670 | 0.473 | 31.868 | 1 | 0.000 | 14.440 | 5.714-36.488 |
PTH | 2.210 | 0.546 | 16.387 | 1 | 0.000 | 9.119 | 3.127-26.592 |
Ca | 0.717 | 0.363 | 3.906 | 1 | 0.048 | 2.048 | 1.006-4.171 |
constant | -1.298 | 2.135 | 28.008 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 9 Univariate analysis of multiple factors in the osteoporosis and normal bone mineral density subgroups of the study group
Factor | Osteoporosis, (%) | Normal BMD (%) | c2 | P value |
Age (yr) | 49.365 | 0.000 | ||
< 45 | 1 | 27 | ||
45-64 | 19 | 24 | ||
≥ 65 | 35 | 4 | ||
Sex | 4.583 | 0.032 | ||
M | 10 | 20 | ||
F | 45 | 35 | ||
Ethnicity | 9.913 | 0.019 | ||
Tibetan | 2 | 10 | ||
Han | 38 | 37 | ||
Hui | 8 | 7 | ||
Others | 7 | 1 | ||
BMI | 0.777 | 0.855 | ||
< 18.5 | 5 | 4 | ||
18.5-23.9 | 36 | 33 | ||
24-27 | 9 | 11 | ||
> 28 | 5 | 7 | ||
Occupation | ||||
Farmer | 10 | 15 | 1.294 | 0.255 |
Non-farmer | 45 | 40 | ||
Vitamin D | 0.959 | 0.811 | ||
< 10 | 19 | 15 | ||
10-20 | 29 | 32 | ||
20-30 | 6 | 6 | ||
≥ 30 | 1 | 2 | ||
PTH | 0.767 | 0381 | ||
< 15 | 0 | 0 | ||
15-65 | 39 | 43 | ||
> 65 | 16 | 12 | ||
Ca | 0.146 | 0.703 | ||
< 2.2 | 28 | 26 | ||
2.2-2.7 | 27 | 29 | ||
> 2.7 | 0 | 0 | ||
P | 1.942 | 0.379 | ||
< 0.85 | 7 | 3 | ||
0.85-1.51 | 46 | 49 | ||
> 1.51 | 2 | 3 | ||
Altitude | 6.381 | 0.041 | ||
1500-2500 | 49 | 40 | ||
2500-3500 | 6 | 11 | ||
3500-5800 | 0 | 4 |
Table 10 Binary logistic regression analysis of multiple factors for osteoporosis
Factor | B value | SD (S.E.) | Wald value | Variance | P value | OR value | OR 95%CI |
Age | 3.976 | 0.846 | 22.062 | 1 | 0.000 | 53.305 | 10.144-280.095 |
Ethnicity | 1.262 | 0.521 | 5.871 | 1 | 0.015 | 5.531 | 1.273-9.797 |
Altitude | -2.049 | 0.514 | 15.871 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.129 | 0.047-0.353 |
Constant | -8.343 | 2.141 | 15.186 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
- Citation: Duan BL, Mao YR, Xue LQ, Yu QY, Liu MY. Determination of vitamin D and analysis of risk factors for osteoporosis in patients with chronic pain. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(11): 2150-2161
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v8/i11/2150.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i11.2150