. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Aug 16.

Published in final edited form as: Osteoporos Int. 2009 Oct 3;21(7):1205–1214. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-1057-0

Table 3.

Comparisons of femoral neck geometric parameters in studied groups classified by gender and ethnicity

	Males		Females		p values
	Caucasians (n = 416)	Chinese (n = 1544)	Caucasians (n = 445)	Chinese (n = 1477)	Caucasians vs. Chinese		Females vs. males
	Caucasians (n = 416)	Chinese (n = 1544)	Caucasians (n = 445)	Chinese (n = 1477)	Males	Females	Caucasians	Chinese
W	3.79 (0.19)	3.45 (0.15)	3.43 (0.17)	3.19 (0.17)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
CSA	3.27 (0.36)	2.73 (0.28)	2.64 (0.37)	2.28 (0.26)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Z	2.28 (0.32)	1.67 (0.25)	1.57 (0.33)	1.20 (0.23)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
CT	0.17 (0.02)	0.16 (0.01)	0.15 (0.02)	0.15 (0.01)	<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001
BR	12.19 (2.42)	11.13 (2.21)	11.55 (2.61)	11.13 (2.33)	<0.001	0.002	<0.001	0.21

The data were expressed as Mean (SD); independent-samples t tests were used to analyze the effect of race (Chinese vs. Caucasians) and sex (women vs. men)

W femoral neck periosteal diameter, CSA femoral cross-sectional area, Z section modulus, CT cortical thickness, BR buckling ratio