Literature DB >> 11477301

Peripheral or central densitometry: does it matter which technique we use?

G M Blake1, I Fogelman.   

Abstract

Over the past decade, bone density scans have assumed an essential role in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Although dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of the central skeleton remain widely used, a variety of different types of equipment for measuring peripheral sites is now available. However, the poor correlation between different types of measurement and a lack of consensus on how results from peripheral sites should be interpreted have proved a barrier to the more widespread use of these devices. These issues prompt the following questions: Which technique best identifies patients at risk of fracture? What approaches to scan interpretation ensure the closest agreement among different methods? Does it matter if different patients are selected for treatment on the basis of different techniques? The relative risk (RR)of fracture derived from prospective studies is a key parameter for comparing the clinical value of different techniques. Recent reports confirm the advantages of hip bone mineral density compared with peripheral measurements for predicting hip fracture risk, although for fractures at other sites the differences are inconclusive. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, we show that the guidelines adopted for scan interpretation are of crucial importance for ensuring that the information provided is used effectively. The closest agreement among different techniques is achieved by setting thresholds for peripheral devices that target either the same percentage of the population or the same percentage of future fracture cases as femur DXA. Different methods select different groups of individuals from the total pool of patients who will later sustain a fracture, with the most successful technique being the one with the largest RR value. The emphasis placed by many studies on validating new techniques by studying their correlation with DXA may lead to the clinical value of peripheral devices being underestimated when the key datum is the RR value inferred from prospective fracture studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11477301     DOI: 10.1385/jcd:4:2:083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Densitom        ISSN: 1094-6950            Impact factor:   2.963


  14 in total

1.  Prevalence of osteoporosis using bone mineral measurements at the calcaneus by dual X-ray and laser (DXL).

Authors:  R Kullenberg; J A Falch
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  The effect of age and bone mineral density on the absolute, excess, and relative risk of fracture in postmenopausal women aged 50-99: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment (NORA).

Authors:  E S Siris; S K Brenneman; E Barrett-Connor; P D Miller; S Sajjan; M L Berger; Y-T Chen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Glen M Blake; Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.401

4.  Device-specific thresholds to diagnose osteoporosis at the proximal femur: an approach to interpreting peripheral bone measurements in clinical practice.

Authors:  J A Clowes; N F A Peel; R Eastell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging.

Authors:  Thomas M Link
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  A list of device-specific thresholds for the clinical interpretation of peripheral x-ray absorptiometry examinations.

Authors:  G M Blake; D J Chinn; S A Steel; R Patel; E Panayiotou; J Thorpe; J N Fordham
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-10-15       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Calcaneal ultrasound predicts early postmenopausal fractures as well as axial BMD. A prospective study of 422 women.

Authors:  J Huopio; H Kröger; R Honkanen; J Jurvelin; S Saarikoski; E Alhava
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-01-16       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  An evaluation of the United Kingdom National Osteoporosis Society position statement on the use of peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  Rajesh Patel; Glen M Blake; Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Guidelines for the diagnosis of osteoporosis: T-scores vs fractures.

Authors:  Paul D Miller
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 9.306

10.  Can the WHO definition of osteoporosis be applied to multi-site axial transmission quantitative ultrasound?

Authors:  K M Knapp; G M Blake; T D Spector; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-12-18       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.