Abstract
-
Skin and bone share similarities in terms of biochemical composition.
-
Some authors have hypothesized that their properties could evolve concomitantly with age, allowing the estimation of the parameters of one from those of the other.
-
We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the correlation between skin and bone parameters in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.
-
Fourteen studies – including 1974 patients – were included in the review.
-
Three of these studies included two groups of participants – osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic – in order to compare skin parameters between them: two studies found a significant difference between the two groups and one did not.
-
Eleven of these studies included one population of interest and compared its skin and bone parameters in a continuous manner: eight studies compared dermal thickness to bone mineral density (seven found a significant correlation [R = 0.19–0.486] and one did not); two studies compared skin elasticity to bone mineral density (both found a significant correlation [R = 0.44–0.57); and one study compared skin collagen to bone mineral density and found a significant correlation (R = 0.587).
-
It can be assumed that the estimation of skin alterations from ageing could help in estimating concomitant bone alterations.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:449-460. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.160088
Introduction
Osteoporosis is a systemic condition associating a reduction of bone mass and a modification of bone micro-architecture. It leads to a mechanical fragility and a higher risk of fracture. 1 The exact pathophysiology of osteoporosis is still to be elucidated. 2 A decrease of osteoblastic activity with age and with the menopause seems related. However, biotypes – female, fair-skinned and slim – and environmental conditions are also implicated. 3 Because of important direct costs to the healthcare system and important indirect costs to government and to society, early detection of osteoporosis is a priority for public health. 4,5
Both skin and bone tissues are mainly composed of collagen. Indeed, the dermis organic matrix comprises about 80% collagen and primarily type I collagen. 6 Moreover, the bone organic matrix comprises about 90% collagen and primarily type I collagen also. 7 This organic part of the bone has the special property of being covered by a mineral component that improves strength and hardens the framework. This specific association explains the capacity of the bone to resist mechanical stresses. Because the organic matrix of bone and skin shares these similarities, biochemical connections between skin and bone tissues could exist.
In 1963, McConkey et al reported that elderly women with osteoporotic fractures had a higher incidence of thin skin. 8 Later, Black et al confirmed the simultaneous occurrence of these events by reporting a correlation between transparent skin and osteoporosis. 9 These observations led to a hypothesis that skin thinning and bone loss could be correlated. 10 Recent investigations suggest that the processes involved in chronological atrophy of both tissues may overlap, thereby providing a foundation for further investigations. 11
Given the importance of an early diagnosis of osteoporosis, the development of a probabilistic model to identify the persons at most risk in a certain population would have a great interest. In fact, current probabilistic models used to estimate the risk of osteoporotic fractures, such as the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), are mostly tools to identify a certain population with a higher risk of fracture. This population classically represents frail, old, white women, with a low bone mineral density (BMD), and a family history of femoral neck fracture. However, we lack a clinical tool that would allow us to go further in the estimation of the risk of fracture for a specific individual. Using the skin, we could be able to estimate the physiology of the specific individual, and then present to her/him a more personalized risk of fracture. Hence, measurement of skin parameters could be performed in order to fulfil that purpose. To test that hypothesis, we performed a systematic review of every study reporting relationships between skin and bone parameters in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Our purpose was to answer the following questions: (1) what type of bone and skin parameters were compared in each study; (2) what was the importance of the relationship found between the bone and skin properties tested?
Methods
Protocol and registration
We specified in advance the objectives, methods of analysis and inclusion/exclusion criteria for this study. Subsequently, we documented them in a protocol. This protocol was registered and made publicly available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero under the registration number CRD42014007351. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used in the design and conduction of the present systematic review. 12,13
Eligibility criteria
Types of studies. We aimed to include studies comparing skin and bone parameters in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. We considered only prospective trials, published in English or in French, without any restriction on publication date, given the fact that we anticipated no change in the relationship tested with the date of publication. We did not include any abstracts or unpublished material.
Types of participants. We included studies that considered women with postmenopausal osteoporosis only. Every study considering other conditions – such as steroid-related osteoporosis, anorexia nervosa, osteogenesis imperfecta – was excluded.
Types of intervention. We made no restriction on the type of intervention used to test skin properties – such as thickness measures, vacuum devices or echographs – or on the type of intervention used to test bone properties – such as radiographs or BMD.
Types of outcome measures. The primary outcome measure was the identification of the type of bone and skin parameters that were compared in each study. The secondary outcome measure was the importance of the relationship found between the bone and skin properties tested.
Information sources
We identified the studies by searching MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We ran the last search on 1 January 2016. The closing date was to be extended in case the retrieval period demanded a significant amount of time so that there would be little risk of excluding relevant and recent studies. We did not attempt to acquire any missing information (e.g. on study methods or results) from investigators or sponsors.
Search
We used the following search terms to search the aforementioned databases: skin and osteoporosis. For example, the search strategy for MEDLINE via PubMed was: ("skin"[MeSH Terms] OR "skin"[All Fields]) AND ("osteoporosis, postmenopausal"[MeSH Terms] OR ("osteoporosis"[All Fields] AND "postmenopausal"[All Fields]) OR "postmenopausal osteoporosis"[All Fields] OR "osteoporosis"[All Fields] OR "osteoporosis"[MeSH Terms]).
Study selection
Two authors (JCA and TB) performed the eligibility assessment independently in a non-blinded standardized manner. First, they reviewed the titles and abstracts resulting from the search. Then, all the studies selected were retrieved and evaluated further from the text to assess the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, the two authors manually searched the references of every included study in order to detect any additional studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus. In case a disagreement persisted, a third review by another author (TH) was performed.
Data collection process
We developed a data extraction sheet based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group’s data extraction template, pilot-tested it on the first five included studies, and refined it accordingly. Two authors (JCA and TB) extracted the data from included studies. The authors aimed to avoid the inclusion of multiple reports of the same study by juxtaposing author names, location of the study and sample sizes. When a duplicated study was suspected, only the more recent study was included. The previous reports were then used to complete any lack of data in the selected study. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the two review authors; if no agreement could be reached, it was planned that a third author (TH) would decide. Finally, we did not contact any author to obtain further information from the included studies.
Data items
Information was extracted from each included trial on: (1) characteristics of trial participants (including date of inclusion, gender, age and conditions) and the trial’s inclusion and exclusion criteria; (2) types of intervention (including types of skin parameter and types of bone parameter); (3) type of outcome measure (relationship found between the parameters). No new variable was added after the final review started.
Summary measures
The primary outcome measure was the identification of the type of bone and skin parameters that were compared in each study. This outcome was presented in a descriptive manner. The secondary outcome measure was the importance of the relationship found between the bone and skin parameters tested. When eligible, it was presented as a coefficient of correlation (R) between the skin and bone parameters.
Synthesis of results
Given the important heterogeneity expected between the parameters used, we anticipated a low consistency of results across the included trials. We decided to present the results as retrieved. Two types of presentation were performed: first, a presentation of the different studies included depending on their general design and then, a presentation of the correlation between skin and bone parameters that were retrieved from each study.
Risk of bias in individual studies
We assessed the validity of the eligible studies using the following markers: healthcare providers, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators and proportion of patients lost to follow-up. The authors did not exclude any study from the review or any subsequent analyses based on the risk of bias. They also did not plan sensitivity or subgroup analyses related to the bias assessments.
Additional analyses
No additional analyses such as sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression were planned a priori.
Results
Selection of the included studies
We identified 14 studies for inclusion in the review (Fig. 1). 14–27 The search of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library provided 1577 citations (976, 563 and 38 respectively). After exclusion of 601 duplicates, we discarded 965 articles: 944 from the title because they were clearly not on the subject and 21 from the abstract (four were clearly not on the subject, five considered other bone disease, six were not in English or in French, and six were reviews). In addition, we identified three additional studies that met criteria for inclusion by checking the references of relevant papers.
Selection of the included studies.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 8; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.160088
Characteristics of the included studies
Among the 14 studies included in the final analysis, all had a prospective design. No study was published between 1950 and 1959, one was published between 1960 and 1969, one was published between 1970 and 1979, one was published between 1980 and 1989, six were published between 1990 and 1999, four were published between 2000 and 2010 and finally, one was published after 2010. They involved 1974 patients in total. All were women. Mean age was 53.6 years (not reported [NR] in eight studies). Among these patients, 1054 were postmenopausal women and were 337 premenopausal (NR in 5 studies). In addition, 221 women were diagnosed with osteoporosis while 210 were not (NR in 10 studies) (see Table 1).
Characteristics of the included studies
| Study | Full title | First author | Journal | Date of publication | Number of patients | Age (range; mean; SD) | Gender F/M | Time of inclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Association between skin thickness and bone density in adult women | Patrícia de Paula Yoneda | Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia | 2011 | 140 | 57 (NR; NR; 10.9) | 140/0 | 2008 - 2010 |
| 2 | Can dermal thickness measured by ultrasound biomicroscopy assist in determining osteoporosis risk? | Perri E. Cagle | Skin Research and Technology | 2007 | 98 | NR (30-88; NR; NR) | 98/0 | 2002 - 2003 |
| 3 | Evaluation of Osteoporosis Using Skin Thickness Measurements | Rajesh Patel | Calcif Tissue Int | 2007 | 603 | NR (20–81; NR; NR) | 603 / 0 | NR |
| 4 | Effects of Aging and Postmenopausal Hypoestrogenism on Skin Elasticity and Bone Mineral Density in Japanese Women | Sumino H | Endocrine Journal | 2004 | 38 | NR (48-71; 55.7; 5.9) | 38 / 0 | NR |
| 5 | Relationship between bone mass density and tensile strength of the skin in women. | Piérard GE | European Journal of Clinical Investigation | 2001 | 100 | NR (NR; NR; NR) | 100 / 0 | NR |
| 6 | Limited value of ultrasound measured skin thickness in predicting bone mineral density in peri- and postmenopausal women | Eero Varila | Maturitas | 1995 | 60 | NR (53-56; NR; NR) | 60 / 0 | NR |
| 7 | Skin thickness in patients with osteoporosis and controls quantified by ultrasound A scan. | Pedersen H | Skin Pharmacology | 1995 | 40 | NR (NR; NR; NR) | 40 / 0 | NR |
| 8 | Skin Thickness does not Reflect Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women | Smeets AJ | Osteoporosis International | 1994 | 94 | NR (45-60; 52.7; 2.9) | 94 / 0 | NR |
| 9 | Relationship between skin collagen and bone changes during aging. | Castelo-Branco C | Maturitas | 1994 | 76 | NR (21-73; 43,77; 14.15) | 76 / 0 | NR |
| 10 | Is a low skinfold thickness an indicator of osteoporosis? | Orme SM | Clinical Endocrinology | 1994 | 206 | NR (NR; NR; NR) | 206 / 0 | NR |
| 11 | Relationships between bone and skin atrophies during aging | Chappard D | Acta Anat | 1991 | 133 | 61.7 (17-94; NR; 16.3) | 133 / 0 | NR |
| 12 | A study of the decrease of skin collagen content, skin thickness and bone mass in the postmenopausal woman | Brincat M | Obstetrics & Gynecology | 1987 | 148 | NR (NR; 51; 7.9) | 148 / 0 | NR |
| 13 | Senile osteoporosis and collagen loss in skin | Balasubramaniam P | Singapore Medical Journal | 1977 | 45 | NR (55-81; NR; NR) | NR | NR |
| 14 | The relationship between skin and cortical bone thickness in old age with special reference to osteoporosis and diabetes mellitus: a roentgenographic study. | Meema HE | J Gerontol | 1969 | 193 | NR (NR; NR; NR) | 193 / 0 | NR |
Interventions
All the participants underwent an analysis of skin and bone parameters (Table 2). The skin parameters tested in the included studies were: an estimation of skin thickness in 10 studies (1715 patients), an estimation of skin elasticity in two studies (138 patients) and an estimation of the collagen content in two studies (121 patients). Several devices were used to assess the skin thickness: radiographs, 27,32 calipers, 23,24 echographs 16,17,19–21,42 and a pachymeter. 15 The anatomical site of the measurement of the skin parameter was: the hand only in five studies or 524 patients; the forearm only in five studies or 987 patients; the abdomen only in one study or 76 patients; and several sites in three studies or 194 patients (NR in one study). The bone parameters tested in the included studies were: an estimation of BMD in 10 studies or 1494 patients (expressed as T-score in five studies or 1107 patients and in g/mm3 in five studies or 387 patients); a quantitative computed tomography in one study or 94 patients; the metacarpal index in one study or 148 patients; the trabecular pattern (Singh index) in one study or 45 patients; and the cortical thickness in one study or 193 patients.
Types of interventions performed on the participants
| Study | First author, year of publication | Type of skin measurement | Anatomical site of skin measurement | Device | Type of bone measurement | Anatomical site of bone measurement | Device |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yoneda et al., 2011 | Skin thickness | Hand | Pachymeter | Bone mineral density (T-score) | Femoral neck, total femur and lumbar spine | Hologic Discovery bone densitometer |
| 2 | Cagle et al., 2007 | Skin thickness | Forearm | Echograph | Bone mineral density (T-score) | Femoral neck | GE Lunar Prodigy DXA device |
| 3 | Patel et al., 2007 | Skin thickness | Forearm | Echograph | Bone mineral density (T-score) | Distal radius, femoral neck and lumbar spine | Hologic QDR-4500 system and Osteometer DTX-200 peripheral DXA |
| 4 | Sumino et al., 2004 | Skin elasticity | Forearm | Vacuum | Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | Lumbar spine | DXA; QDR- 1000W, Hologic |
| 5 | Piérard et al., 2001 | Skin elasticity | Forearm | Vacuum | Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | Femoral neck and lumbar spine. | NR |
| 6 | Varila et al., 1995 | Skin thickness | Forearm / abdomen / leg | Echograph | Bone mineral density (T-score) | Distal radius, femoral neck and lumbar spine | DXA, Norland XR-26 |
| 7 | Pedersen et al., 1995 | Skin thickness | Hand / forearm / arm | Echograph | Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | Distal radius and lumbar spine | BMC-LAB22s, Novo Diagnostics System and 125I, NovoGT, Novo Diagnostic System |
| 8 | Smeets et al., 1994 | Skin thickness | Forearm / arm | Echograph | Quantitative computed tomography (mg/ml CallA) and Bone mineral density (mm A1 equivalent/mm3) | Lumbar spine | Somatom Plus CT scanner and standardized PA / L radiographs |
| 9 | Castelo-Branco et al., 1994 | Skin collagen | Abdomen | Biopsy | Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | Lumbar spine | Lunar DP3 dual-photon absorptiomete |
| 10 | Orme et al., 1994 | Skin thickness | Hand | Caliper | Bone mineral density (T-score) | Femoral neck and lumbar spine | DEXA Lunae corporation |
| 11 | Chappard et al., 1991 | Skin thickness | Hand | Caliper | Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | Lumbar spine | Hologic QDR-1000 |
| 12 | Brincat et al., 1987 | Skin thickness | Forearm | Radiograph | Metacarpal index and bone mineral content (g/cm2) | Second metacarpal (metacarpal index) and forearm (bone mineral content) | Standardized PA / L radiographs |
| 13 | Balasubramaniam et al., 1977 | Skin collagen | Hand | Biopsy | Trabecular pattern (Singh index) | Femoral neck | Standardized PA / L radiographs |
| 14 | Meema et al., 1969 | Skin thickness | NR | Radiograph | Cortical thickness (mm) | Proximal end of the radius shaft | Standardized PA / L radiographs |
Primary and secondary outcomes (Fig. 2)
On the one hand, three studies included two groups of participants – osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic – in order to compare skin parameters between them (Table 3). Among these studies, two found a significant difference between the two groups and one did not. On the other hand, eleven studies included one population of interest and compared skin and bone parameters in a continuous manner (Table 4). Among these studies, eight compared dermal thickness to BMD: seven of them found a significant correlation (R from 0.19 to 0.486) and one did not. Two studies compared skin elasticity with BMD and both found a significant correlation (R from 0.44 to 0.57). Finally, one study compared skin collagen to BMD and found a significant correlation (R = 0.587).
Types of bone and skin parameters compared in each study and importance of the relationship found between the different parameters tested.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 8; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.160088
Results of the studies comparing two different groups of participants – osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic
| Study | Type of skin measurement | Type of bone measurement | Number of patients (osteoporotic – non osteoporotic) | Type of study | Primary outcome | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pedersen H, 1995 | Skin thickness | Bone mineral density (grams of hydroxyapatite) |
40 (20 – 20) | Case-control study | Difference of skin thickness between 2 groups | No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) |
| Orme SM, 1994 | Skin thickness | Bone mineral density (T-score) |
206 (141 – 65) |
Case-control study | Difference of skin thickness between 2 groups | 1.6 +/- 0.4 mm Vs 1.8 +/- 0.3 mm (p<0.0001) |
| Balasubramaniam P, 1977 | Skin collagen | Trabecular pattern (Singh index) | 45 (23 – 22) | Case-control study | Correlation between the amount of skin collagen and osteoporosis. | Statistically significant difference (p<0.01) |
Results of the studies comparing skin and bone parameters in a continuous manner
| Study | Type of skin measurement | Type of bone measurement | Number of patients | Type of study | Primary outcome | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yoneda et al., 2011 | Skin thickness | Bone mineral density (T-score) | 140 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin thickness and BMD | R = 0.34 (P<0.01) |
| Cagle et al., 2007 | Skin thickness | Bone mineral density (T-score) | 98 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin thickness and BMD | R = 0.304 (P=0.001) |
| Patel et al., 2007 | Skin thickness | Bone mineral density (T-score) | 603 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin thickness and BMD | R = 0.21 – 0.29 (P < 0.0001) |
| Varila et al., 1995 | Skin thickness | Bone mineral density (T-score) | 60 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin thickness and BMD | R = 0.19 - 0.24 (p=NR) |
| Smeets et al., 1994 | Skin thickness | Quantitative computed tomography (mg/ml CallA) and Bone mineral density (mm A1 equivalent/mm3) | 94 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin thickness and BMD | R= NR (p=NS) |
| Chappard et al., 1991 | Skin thickness | Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | 133 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin thickness and BMD | R = 0.364 for vertebral BMD (p<0.0001)
R = 0.486 for femoral BMD (p<0.0001) |
| Brincat et al., 1987 | Skin thickness | Metacarpal index and bone mineral content | 148 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin thickness and metacarpal index and bone mineral content | NS for BMC 3cm R = 0.24 for BMC 8cm (p<0.05) |
| Meema et al., 1969 | Skin thickness | Cortical thickness | 193 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin thickness and cortical thickness | R = 0.28 in the diabetic group (p<0.05)
R = 0.33 in the non-diabetic group (p<0.01) R = 0.37 (p<0.05) in the non-diabetics with vertebral compressions |
| Sumino et al., 2004 | Skin elasticity | Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | 38 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin elasticity and BMD | R = 0.44 (p<0.01) |
| Piérard et al., 2001 | Skin elasticity | Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | 100 | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin tensile strength and BMD | R = 0.48 in the hip (p<0.05)
R = 0.57 in the femoral neck (p<0.01) R = 0.46 in the lumbar spine (p<0.05) |
| Castelo-Branco et al., 1994 | Skin collagen | Bone mineral density (grams of hydroxyapataite) | 76 (33 – 42) | Cross-sectional study | Correlation between skin collagen and BMD | R = 0.587 (p<0.000l) |
Synthesis of results
The included studies allowed the drawing of a path from the skin to the bone. Indeed, there are sufficient data to confirm that the degradation of certain skin parameters is correlated with the degradation of certain bone parameters in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The difficulty lies in the fact that the importance of this correlation varies greatly between the different parameters that were tested and the location where they were performed.
First, three studies indicated that several skin parameters would allow the clinician to separate two groups of patients: those with osteoporosis and those without (Fig. 3). Among these parameters, the ones that were reported with the most relevant correlation were the skin thickness measured at the extensor side of the hand 23 and the skin collagen content extracted from the extensor side of the hand. 26 However, one of these three studies could not confirm the aforementioned results for skin thickness measured at the extensor side of the hand and also found no impact of skin thickness measured at the forearm. 20
Results extracted from the studies comparing one skin parameter in two groups (non-osteoporotic vs. osteoporotic), such as skin thickness 20,23 and skin collagen content, 26 depending on the anatomical sites where the measurements were made (number of patients/skin results/bone results/correlation).
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 8; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.160088
Second, several studies reported a correlation between several skin and bone parameters that could allow an estimation of a bone parameter from a skin parameter. Indeed, skin elasticity measured on the extensor aspect of the forearm (Fig. 4) could be used to estimate BMD at the lumbar spine, hip and femoral neck. 14,18 Also, skin thickness on the extensor aspect of the hand and on the flexor side of the forearm (Fig. 5a) could be used to estimate several sites of BMD. 15,16,19,25,27 However, skin thickness on the arm extensor aspect has not been reported to be correlated with any alteration of bone properties. 21 Also, skin thickness at the abdomen or at the leg (Fig. 5b) has not been reported to be correlated to any alteration. 19 Finally, skin collagen harvested from the abdomen (Fig. 5b) could not be used to estimate BMD at the lumbar spine. 22
Results extracted from the study comparing two parameters (skin elasticity and bone mineral density) in one population, depending on the anatomical sites where the measurements were made (number of patients/skin results/bone results/correlation). 14,18
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 8; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.160088
Results extracted from the studies comparing two parameters (skin thickness and certain bone properties) in one group, depending on the anatomical sites where the measurements were made (number of patients/skin results/bone results/correlation). 15–17,19,21,25,27
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 8; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.160088
Results extracted from the study comparing two parameters (skin thickness and bone mineral density) in one group, depending on the anatomical sites where the measurements were made (number of patients/skin results/bone results/correlation). 19,22
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 8; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.160088
Discussion
Biochemical connections between skin and bone tissues exist because both tissue types are mainly composed of collagen. 6,28 Indeed, many authors have tried to verify this observation with various clinical trials. In this systematic review of every study reporting relationships between skin and bone parameters in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, we have confirmed the hypothesis of a certain correlation between the alteration of skin and bone tissues with age. Hence, measurement of certain skin parameters could be performed in order to estimate bone parameters.
The general process of ageing could explain the origins of the correlation between the alterations of skin and bone parameters. In fact, ageing is a common process within a population, and takes place in every subject. One of the most representative ageing changes is the alteration of the mechanical properties of the tissues. For the skin, bone and other organs, these properties are mostly determined by the connective tissue. Collagen is the main protein in the connective tissue and is widely distributed throughout the body. Skin collagen is comparable with collagen in other locations of the human body, and it is reasonable to assume that ageing skin collagen undergoes some of the same modifications as collagen from other sites. 29 Bone is a metabolically active tissue composed of an organic matrix made up of collagen and several non-collagenous proteins (osteocalcin, osteonectin, etc.) and an inorganic component (hydroxyapatite). Hence, assuming that all the collagen of the body will age equally, it is possible that skin and bone will age in the same manner, especially in postmenopausal osteoporosis. 10
Bone mass and skin collagen content share comparable regressive changes during ageing. Some authors have pointed out that skin collagen is influenced by the loss of oestrogen production by the ovaries and that skin collagen content decreases in the postmenopausal years. 30–33 Clinically, ageing skin shows fine wrinkling, thinning – reflecting atrophy of the collagenous dermis – and poor wound healing. Examination of age-related changes in the dermis by light and electron microscopy has demonstrated disorganization of the elastic fibre network together with a decrease in the number of collagen fibre bundles. 34,35 Moreover, ageing is correlated with loss of bone mass. 36–38 It seems that the conclusions drawn by Albright et al 50 years ago are valid and that bone loss accelerates in women when ovarian failure occurs, and the event of global gonadal function decline at the menopause induces a major risk for osteoporosis in those women. 39–41 These observations support our findings of a certain correlation between the parameters of the skin and the parameters of the bone in postmenopausal osteoporosis.
This systematic review confirms that skin parameters could be of help in differentiating two types of population: osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic. However, the results of this study must be interpreted cautiously for various reasons. First, the correlation between the diminution of skin thickness and the diminution of bone mineral density in the investigated population was moderate at best. And the correlation between the diminution of skin elasticity and bone mineral density was only slightly stronger. Second, different methodologies have been used to assess the skin and bone parameters. The main skin parameter that was tested was biophysical – skin thickness – and several devices were used to assess it: radiographs, 27,32 calipers, 23,24 echographs 16,17,19–21,42 and a pachymeter. 15 Furthermore, the skin thickness obtained with these various methods has been compared with several biophysical bone parameters: BMD 15–17,19,20,23,24 , bone mineral content 21,32 and cortical thickness. 27 The other skin parameter that was tested was also biophysical – skin elasticity – and it was compared with a biophysical bone parameter, BMD. 14,18 The last skin parameter that was tested was biochemical – the collagen content of the skin – and it was compared with a biophysical bone parameter: BMD in one case 22 and trabecular pattern in the other. Third, several of the parameters used to test the bone are now obsolete – cortical thickness and the Singh index for instance – and they may jeopardize the comparison with other studies that used more recent parameters. Finally, the studies included in this review were chosen to identify a correlation between two parameters: one of skin and one of bone. The goal of those epidemiological studies was that a diminution of a skin parameter would make the clinician suspect osteoporosis. To the best of our knowledge, there is no data that would allow an algorithm to be designed that would allow estimation of the alteration of one parameter – skin thickness for instance – from another one – BMD for instance. That would be the next step. Furthermore, we found that most of these studies reported a correlation between certain skin and bone parameters during postmenopausal osteoporosis. But ultimately, none of these alone can predict the risk of fracture, which we want to prevent in this population. Indeed, the risk of osteoporosis is multi-factorial and includes biotypes and environmental conditions that may not be taken into consideration with this method.
We acknowledge several limitations to the study itself. First, the studies that were included in the analysis do not lend themselves to comparison, nor do they make it possible to combine data to reach a conclusion. Skin thickness was measured in many different sites by different methods and bone was assessed by BMD, plain films of the spine, and carpal density and thickness. Second, the timeframe of inclusion is very large and the methods used to test skin and bone parameters may have changed. In studies predating 1990, Dual Energy X-Ray was not used to measure BMD, and old methods lacking accuracy were employed, including metacarpal index, trabecular pattern by Singh index and cortical thickness by radial shaft radiograph. Third, despite a large timeframe, only 14 studies were found – this represents a very low number. Furthermore, the 14 included studies included various designs and the parameters tested were very different, which could have led to misinterpretations. Fourth, most of the studies included in the review are more than 5 years old. This reflects the fact there was a trend to try to correlate skin and bone ageing several decades ago, but the correlations were moderate. Hence, this hypothesis began to interest researchers less and less despite the fact that the correlation, although modest, seemed real. Recently, interest in this medical hypothesis has been renewed for a specific population – contra-lateral hip fractures. 43 Fifth, the selection of the studies included in our study represents another limitation. It is possible that studies performed during the interval but not published in English or not published at all were not included in this review. Given the fact that this kind of study usually presents inconclusive results, it represents a bias of our current study. Finally, because of the great heterogeneity of the results reported in all the included studies, no meta-analysis was carried out and the results are presented as extracted, limiting their interpretation.
Conclusion
We found a majority of studies that reported a correlation between skin and bone parameters in postmenopausal osteoporosis. However, only a limited number of parameters were tested in each study. Now, overall tests are still needed to improve the understanding of the concomitant modifications of skin and bone in postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Open access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
Study design: JCA. Study conduct: JCA and CB. Drafting manuscript content: JCA, CB, MB, TB and TH. Approving final version of manuscript: JCA, CB, MB, TB and TH.
T. Begué declares board membership of EFORT, SOFCOT and GETRAUM; consultancy for Stryker Trauma; payment for lectures from Orthofix International; payment for travel and accommodation expenses from SMACOT and SICOT, activities outside the submitted work.
References
- 1.↑
Kanis JA , McCloskey EV , Johansson H , Cooper C , Rizzoli R , Reginster JY . Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) and the Committee of Scientific Advisors of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:23–57.
- 2.↑
Bala Y , Farlay D , Boivin G . Bone mineralization: from tissue to crystal in normal and pathological contexts. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:2153–2166.
- 3.↑
Hooven FH , Adachi JD , Adami S et al.. The Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW): rationale and study design. Osteoporos Int 2009;20:1107–1116.
- 4.↑
Fleurence RL , Iglesias CP , Torgerson DJ . Economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: a structured review of the literature. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:29–40.
- 5.↑
Hopkins RB , Tarride JE , Leslie WD , Metge C , Lix LM , Morin S et al.. Estimating the excess costs for patients with incident fractures, prevalent fractures, and nonfracture osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2012;24:581–593.
- 6.↑
Hussain SH , Limthongkul B , Humphreys TR . The biomechanical properties of the skin. Dermatol Surg 2013;39:193–203.
- 7.↑
Currey JD . Role of collagen and other organics in the mechanical properties of bone. Osteoporos Int 2003;14(suppl 5):S29–S36.
- 8.↑
McConkey B , Fraser GM , Bligh AS , Whiteley H . Transparent skin and osteoporosis. Lancet 1963;281:693– 695.
- 9.↑
Black MM , Shuster S , Bottoms E . Osteoporosis, skin collagen, and androgen. BMJ 1970;4:773–774.
- 10.↑
Shuster S . Osteoporosis, a unitary hypothesis of collagen loss in skin and bone. Med Hypotheses 2005;65:426–432.
- 11.↑
Whitmore SE , Levine MA . Risk factors for reduced skin thickness and bone density: possible clues regarding pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998;38:248–255.
- 12.↑
Moher D , Liberati A , Tetzlaff J , Altman DG , Grp P . Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;6.
- 13.↑
Liberati A , Altman DG , Tetzlaff J et al.. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100.
- 14.↑
Sumino H , Ichikawa S , Abe M et al.. Effects of aging and postmenopausal hypoestrogenism on skin elasticity and bone mineral density in Japanese women. Endocr J 2004;51:159–164.
- 15.↑
de Paula Yoneda P , Biancolin SE , Gomes MSM , Miot HA . Association between skin thickness and bone density in adult women. An Bras Dermatol 2011;86:878–884.
- 16.↑
Cagle PE , Dyson M , Gajewski B , Lukert B . Can dermal thickness measured by ultrasound biomicroscopy assist in determining osteoporosis risk? Skin Res Technol 2007;13:95–100.
- 17.↑
Patel R , Blake GM , Fogelman I . Evaluation of osteoporosis using skin thickness measurements. Calcif Tissue Int 2007;81:442–449.
- 18.↑
Piérard GE , Piérard-Franchimont C , Vanderplaetsen S , Franchimont N , Gaspard U , Malaise M . Relationship between bone mass density and tensile strength of the skin in women. Eur J Clin Invest 2001;31:731–735.
- 19.↑
Varila E , Sievanen H , Vuori I , Oksanen H , Punnonen R . Limited value of ultrasound measured skin thickness in predicting bone-mineral density in peri- and postmenopausal women. Maturitas 1995;21:45–49.
- 20.↑
Pedersen H , Agner T , Storm T . Skin thickness in patients with osteoporosis and controls quantified by ultrasound A scan. Skin Pharmacol 1995;8:207–210.
- 21.↑
Smeets AJ , Kuiper JW , van Kuijk C , Berning B , Zwamborn AW . Skin thickness does not reflect bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 1994;4:32–35.
- 22.↑
Castelo-Branco C , Pons F , Gratacós E , Fortuny A , Vanrell JA , González-Merlo J . Relationship between skin collagen and bone changes during aging. Maturitas 1994;18:199–206.
- 23.↑
Orme SM , Belchetz PE . Is a low skinfold thickness an indicator of osteoporosis? Clin Endocrinol 1994;41:283–287.
- 24.↑
Chappard D , Alexandre C , Robert JM , Riffat G . Relationships between bone and skin atrophies during aging. Acta Anat (Basel) 1991;141:239–244.
- 25.↑
Brincat M , Kabalan S , Studd JW , Moniz CF , de Trafford J , Montgomery J . A study of the decrease of skin collagen content, skin thickness, and bone mass in the postmenopausal woman. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:840–845.
- 26.↑
Balasubramaniam P , Leong AS . Senile osteoporosis and collagen loss in skin. Singapore Med J 1977;18:178–181.
- 27.↑
Meema HE , Reid DB . The relationship between skin and cortical bone thickness in old age with special reference to osteoporosis and diabetes mellitus: a roentgenographic study. J Gerontol 1969;24:28–32.
- 29.↑
Grob GN . From aging to pathology: the case of osteoporosis. J Hist Med Allied Sci 2011;66:1–39.
- 30.↑
Castelo-Branco C , Duran M , González-Merlo J . Skin collagen changes related to age and hormone replacement therapy. Maturitas 1992;15:113–119.
- 31.
Brincat M , Versi E , O’Dowd T et al.. Skin collagen changes in post-menopausal women receiving oestradiol gel. Maturitas 1987;9:1–5.
- 32.↑
Brincat M , Moniz CF , Kabalan S et al.. Decline in skin collagen content and metacarpal index after the menopause and its prevention with sex hormone replacement. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:126–129.
- 33.↑
Brincat M , Moniz CJ , Studd JW et al.. Long-term effects of the menopause and sex hormones on skin thickness. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985;92:256–259.
- 34.↑
Braverman IM & Fonferko E The Elastic Fiber Network. Studies in cutaneous aging: I. The elastic fiber network. J Invest Dermatol 1982;78:434–443.
- 35.↑
Lovell CR , Smolenski KA , Duance VC , Light ND , Young S , Dyson M . Type I and III collagen content and fibre distribution in normal human skin during ageing. Br J Dermatol 1987;117:419–428.
- 36.↑
Cummings SR , Kelsey JL , Nevitt MC , O’Dowd KJ . Epidemiology of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. Epidemiol Rev 1985;7:178–208.
- 37.
Melton LJ III. Epidemiology of fractures. In: Riggs BL , Melton LJ eds. Osteoporosis: etiology, diagnosis, and management. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1995:225–247.
- 38.↑
Castelo-Branco C , Pons F , González-Merlo J . Bone mineral density in surgically postmenopausal women receiving hormonal replacement therapy as assessed by dual photon absorptiometry. Maturitas 1993;16:133–137.
- 39.↑
Albright F , Smith PH , Richardson AM . Postmenopausal osteoporosis: its clinical features. JAMA 1941;116:2465–2474.
- 40.
Smith DM , Khairi MR , Norton J & Johnston CC Jr. Age and activity effects on rate of bone mineral loss. J Clin Invest 1976;58:716–721.
- 41.↑
Richelson LS , Wahner HW , Melton LJ III , Riggs BL . Relative contributions of aging and estrogen deficiency to postmenopausal bone loss. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1273–1275.
- 42.↑
Patel KV , Brennan KL , Brennan ML , Jupiter DC , Shar A , Davis ML . Association of a modified frailty index with mortality after femoral neck fracture in patients aged 60 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:1010–1017.
- 43.↑
Aurégan J-C , Frison A , Bégué T , Hannouche D , Bosser C , Bensidhoum M et al.. Contra-lateral hip fracture in the elderly: are decreased body mass index and skin thickness predictive factors? Int Orthop 2016;9:1–6.
