Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • Sex Differences in Medicine (Sep 2024)
    • Vascular Malformations (Apr 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Top
  • View PDF
  • Download citation information
  • Send a comment
  • Terms of use
  • Standard abbreviations
  • Need help? Email the journal
  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Version history
Article has an altmetric score of 3

See more details

Referenced in 1 clinical guideline sources
38 readers on Mendeley
  • Article usage
  • Citations to this article (320)

Advertisement

Research Article Free access | 10.1172/JCI110570

Differential effects of endocrine dysfunction on the axial and the appendicular skeleton.

E Seeman, H W Wahner, K P Offord, R Kumar, W J Johnson, and B L Riggs

Find articles by Seeman, E. in: JCI | PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Wahner, H. in: JCI | PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Offord, K. in: JCI | PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Kumar, R. in: JCI | PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Johnson, W. in: JCI | PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Riggs, B. in: JCI | PubMed | Google Scholar

Published June 1, 1982 - More info

Published in Volume 69, Issue 6 on June 1, 1982
J Clin Invest. 1982;69(6):1302–1309. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI110570.
© 1982 The American Society for Clinical Investigation
Published June 1, 1982 - Version history
View PDF
Abstract

In 100 patients with various types of endocrine dysfunction, we measured bone mineral density (BMD) at the midradius (greater than 95% cortical bone) and distal radius (75% cortical and 25% trabecular bone) by single photon absorptiometry and at the lumbar spine (greater than 66% trabecular bone) using the new technique of dual photon absorptiometry. BMD in each endocrine disorder deviated in at least one site from the sex-specific age regression of 187 normal subjects. For patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, hypercortisolism, and hyperthyroidism this deviation was negative (suggesting bone loss), whereas for patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism due to chronic renal failure, acromegaly, and postsurgical hypoparathyroidism it was positive (suggesting bone gain). When all six states of endocrine dysfunction were compared concomitantly by multivariate analysis of variance, the profile of the changes in BMD differed significantly (P less than 0.001), indicating a nonuniform response of bone to the various hormonal alterations. When values for BMD at each of the three scanning sites were compared the midradius and distal radius did not differ significantly; either of the radius measurements, however, differed significantly (P less than 0.001) from the lumbar spine. Thus, the BMD of the axial skeleton cannot be reliably predicted from measurements made in the appendicular skeleton. We conclude that the effects of endocrine dysfunction on bone density are complex and are both disease and site specific.

Browse pages

Click on an image below to see the page. View PDF of the complete article

icon of scanned page 1302
page 1302
icon of scanned page 1303
page 1303
icon of scanned page 1304
page 1304
icon of scanned page 1305
page 1305
icon of scanned page 1306
page 1306
icon of scanned page 1307
page 1307
icon of scanned page 1308
page 1308
icon of scanned page 1309
page 1309
Version history
  • Version 1 (June 1, 1982): No description

Article tools

  • View PDF
  • Download citation information
  • Send a comment
  • Terms of use
  • Standard abbreviations
  • Need help? Email the journal

Metrics

Article has an altmetric score of 3
  • Article usage
  • Citations to this article (320)

Go to

  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Version history
Advertisement
Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts

Referenced in 1 clinical guideline sources
38 readers on Mendeley
See more details