Literature DB >> 15937635

The impact of hip subregion reference data on osteoporosis diagnosis.

William D Leslie1, Patricia A Caetano, E Bruce Roe.   

Abstract

Manufacturers of bone densitometry devices have been moving from manufacturer-specific reference values to data derived from larger population-based cohorts such as the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES) III. One bone densitometer manufacturer has released software that provides hip subregion T-score calculations based upon four slightly different versions of hip reference data. Our aim was to determine how changes in hip reference data affect diagnostic classification based on minimum T-scores in older women. We extracted results for lumbar spine and hip bone density measurements from the Manitoba Bone Density database for women aged 50 years or older who had baseline scans on the manufacturer's equipment (n=17,053). T-scores were calculated using manufacturer-specific non-NHANES data and three software implementations of NHANES reference data. One software version gave results at subregions of the hip that were significantly lower than with the three other sets of reference data from the same manufacturer (mean femoral neck T-score absolute difference 0.23-0.48, P<0.00001; mean trochanter T-score absolute difference 0.49-0.70, P<0.00001). As a result the proportion of measurements with a T-score of -2.5 or lower almost doubled at the femoral neck (14.3 versus 27.7%, P<0.00001) and approximately tripled at the trochanter (8.1 versus 24.0%, P<0.00001). The final patient classification of osteoporosis based on a minimum T-score of -2.5 or lower from all four measured sites differed significantly between the four versions (absolute difference 7.9 to 10.4%, P<0.00001). Small changes in the reference data used in T-score calculations had large effects on patient categorization and the calculated prevalence of osteoporosis. The impact of changes in reference data need to be carefully evaluated by users and manufacturers before widespread clinical dissemination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15937635     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-005-1901-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  19 in total

1.  Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments.

Authors:  S L Hui; S Gao; X H Zhou; C C Johnston; Y Lu; C C Glüer; S Grampp; H Genant
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Effect of osteoarthritis in the lumbar spine and hip on bone mineral density and diagnosis of osteoporosis in elderly men and women.

Authors:  G Liu; M Peacock; O Eilam; G Dorulla; E Braunstein; C C Johnston
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Classification of osteoporosis based on bone mineral densities.

Authors:  Y Lu; H K Genant; J Shepherd; S Zhao; A Mathur; T P Fuerst; S R Cummings
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults.

Authors:  A C Looker; H W Wahner; W L Dunn; M S Calvo; T B Harris; S P Heyse; C C Johnston; R L Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Discrepancies in normative data between Lunar and Hologic DXA systems.

Authors:  K G Faulkner; L A Roberts; M R McClung
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and Ward's triangle.

Authors:  Y Lu; T Fuerst; S Hui; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  A longitudinal study of the effect of spinal degenerative disease on bone density in the elderly.

Authors:  G Jones; T Nguyen; P N Sambrook; P J Kelly; J A Eisman
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.666

8.  How the new Hologic hip normal reference values affect the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Z Chen; M Maricic; P Lund; J Tesser; O Gluck
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results.

Authors:  H K Genant; S Grampp; C C Glüer; K G Faulkner; M Jergas; K Engelke; S Hagiwara; C Van Kuijk
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Establishing a regional bone density program: lessons from the Manitoba experience.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Colleen Metge
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  2 in total

1.  Validation of a case definition for osteoporosis disease surveillance.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix; M S Yogendran
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Peak bone mass from longitudinal data: implications for the prevalence, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Claudie Berger; David Goltzman; Lisa Langsetmo; Lawrence Joseph; Stuart Jackson; Nancy Kreiger; Alan Tenenhouse; K Shawn Davison; Robert G Josse; Jerilynn C Prior; David A Hanley
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 6.741

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.