Case Control Study
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
Table 1 Comparison of the general data and vitamin D concentrations between the study and control groups
GroupnAge (yr)Sex (M/F)Vitamin D (ng/mL)
Study18457.62 ± 13.7949/13513.76 ± 7.15
Control10456.52 ± 13.6625/7920.12 ± 7.59
t (c2)0.6560.2347.085
P value0.5120.6290.000
Table 2 Comparison of the percentage of vitamin D concentration between the study and control groups
Vitamin D levelStudy group (n = 184), n (%)Control group (n = 104), n (%)c2P value
< 1055 (29.9)1 (1.0)35.5020.000
10-2099 (53.8)60 (57.7)0.4060.524
20-3025 (13.6)33 (31.7)13.6000.000
≥ 305 (2.7)10 (9.6)6.4040.011
Table 3 Comparison of vitamin D concentrations between the normal bone mineral density group, reduced bone mineral density group, and osteoporosis group
GroupnAge (yr)Sex (M/F)Vitamin D (ng/mL)
Normal BMD5549.18 ± 11.2920/3514.20 ± 7.48
Reduced BMD7462.29 ± 12.28119/5514.12 ± 6.71
Osteoporosis5567.48 ± 9.20210/4512.94 ± 7.002
F(c2)2108.7704.71135.824
P value0.0000.0950.000
Table 4 The diagnostic value of vitamin D concentration on bone mass reduction and osteoporosis
GroupnAUCSDP value95%CI
Reduced BMD740.4870.0560.8200.379-0.596
Osteoporosis550.4170.0550.1340.309-0.525
Table 5 Relationship between age groups and bone mineral density in patients with chronic pain
Age group (yr)nNormal BMD (%)Reduced BMD (%)Osteoporosis (%)c2P value
< 453227 (49.09)4 (5.41)1 (1.82)
45-648624 (43.63)43 (58.11)19 (34.55)58.9330.000
≥ 65664 (7.27)27 (36.49)35 (63.64)
Total18455 (100)74 (100)55 (100)
Table 6 Comparison of vitamin D concentrations between different age groups in the study group
Age group (yr)nVitamin D (ng/mL)
< 453213.23 ± 5.58
45-64861.64 ± 7.06
≥ 656614.15 ± 8.00
F0.189
P value0.28
Table 7 Univariate analysis of various factors in the normal and reduced bone mineral density groups of the study group
FactorReduced BMD (%)Normal BMD (%)c2P value
Age (yr)37.5330.000
< 45427
45-644324
≥ 65274
Sex23.3340.000
M1920
F5535
Ethnicity8.4070.038
Tibetan310
Han6037
Hui77
Others41
BMI2.3020.512
< 18.534
18.5-22.93833
24-272211
≥ 28117
Occupation0.1440.704
Farmer1815
Non-farmer5640
Vitamin D1.3230.724
< 102115
10-203832
20-30136
≥ 3022
PTH7.5030.023
< 1510
15-654143
> 653212
Ca21.3960.000
< 2.23926
2.2-2.71729
> 2.7180
P1.3120.519
< 0.8553
0.85-1.516149
> 1.5183
Altitude2.9880.224
1500-25005840
2500-35001511
3500-580014
Table 8 Binary logistic analysis of multiple factors for bone mass reduction
FactorB valueSD (S.E.)Wald valueVarianceP valueOR valueOR, 95%CI
Age2.6700.47331.86810.00014.4405.714-36.488
PTH2.2100.54616.38710.0009.1193.127-26.592
Ca0.7170.3633.90610.0482.0481.006-4.171
constant-1.2982.13528.00810.0000.000
Table 9 Univariate analysis of multiple factors in the osteoporosis and normal bone mineral density subgroups of the study group
FactorOsteoporosis, (%)Normal BMD (%)c2P value
Age (yr)49.3650.000
< 45127
45-641924
≥ 65354
Sex4.5830.032
M1020
F4535
Ethnicity9.9130.019
Tibetan210
Han3837
Hui87
Others71
BMI0.7770.855
< 18.554
18.5-23.93633
24-27911
> 2857
Occupation
Farmer10151.2940.255
Non-farmer4540
Vitamin D0.9590.811
< 101915
10-202932
20-3066
≥ 3012
PTH0.7670381
< 1500
15-653943
> 651612
Ca0.1460.703
< 2.22826
2.2-2.72729
> 2.700
P1.9420.379
< 0.8573
0.85-1.514649
> 1.5123
Altitude6.3810.041
1500-25004940
2500-3500611
3500-580004
Table 10 Binary logistic regression analysis of multiple factors for osteoporosis
FactorB valueSD (S.E.)Wald valueVarianceP valueOR valueOR 95%CI
Age3.9760.84622.06210.00053.30510.144-280.095
Ethnicity1.2620.5215.87110.0155.5311.273-9.797
Altitude-2.0490.51415.87110.0000.1290.047-0.353
Constant-8.3432.14115.18610.0000.000