Literature DB >> 15981020

Diagnosis of osteoporosis: visual assessment on conventional versus digital radiographs.

Sabine Wagner1, Axel Stäbler, Harald Sittek, Harald Bonel, Gerlinde Laeverenz, Maximilian F Reiser, Andrea Baur-Melnyk.   

Abstract

In many radiological departments conventional radiography has been replaced by digital radiography. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the visual detection of osteopenia/osteoporosis with both digital and conventional radiographs. In 286 patients we retrospectively evaluated radiographs of the lumbar spine in two planes. One hundred twenty-eight patients had conventional and 158 patients had digital radiographs. Patients with pre-existing vertebral fractures were excluded. Four experienced musculoskeletal radiologists blinded to the values of DXA and to the patients' ages assessed independently from each other whether the bone density of the lumbar spines was normal or decreased. The results of dual X-ray absorptiometry served as the standard of reference. The threshold value for the diagnosis of osteopenia was a T-score less than -1 SD according to the WHO classification of osteoporosis. Sensitivity/specificity was 86%/36% for conventional and 72%/47% for digital radiographs. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 68% for conventional and 64% for digital radiographs. Eighty percent of the patients with osteopenia and 96% of the patients with osteoporosis were correctly assessed as true positive on conventional radiographs and 65% (osteopenia) and 82% (osteoporosis) on digital radiographs. Interobserver agreement was markedly lower for digital (35%) than for conventional radiographs (73%). However, the differences were not statistically significant. There is no major difference in diagnostic accuracy in the assessment of osteopenia/osteoporosis using digital and conventional radiographs, respectively. However, the high interobserver variance on digital radiographs indicates that visual assessment of osteoporosis/osteopenia is problematic, which may be due to image processing and postprocessing algorithms that manipulate the visual aspect of bone density.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15981020     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-005-1937-x

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Lateral dual X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine: current status.

Authors:  M Jergas; H K Genant
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  Observer variation in the detection of osteopenia.

Authors:  D M Epstein; M K Dalinka; F S Kaplan; J M Aronchick; D L Marinelli; H L Kundel
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Mammographic dual-screen-dual-emulsion-film combination: visibility of simulated microcalcifications and effect on image contrast.

Authors:  C Kimme-Smith; L W Bassett; R H Gold; D Roe; J Orr
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Spinal and femoral DXA for the assessment of spinal osteoporosis.

Authors:  M Jergas; H K Genant
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.333

5.  Prevention and management of osteoporosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser       Date:  2003

Review 6.  Radiologic diagnosis of osteoporosis. Current methods and perspectives.

Authors:  S Grampp; M Jergas; C C Glüer; P Lang; P Brastow; H K Genant
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Clinical relevance of radiologic examination of the skeleton and bone density measurements in osteoporosis of old age.

Authors:  J Kovarik; W Küster; G Seidl; W Linkesch; W Dorda; R Willvonseder; E Kotscher
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 9.  Recognizing and reporting osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

Authors:  Mikayel Grigoryan; Ali Guermazi; Frank W Roemer; Pierre D Delmas; Harry K Genant
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  [Radiologic diagnosis of osteoporosis. Current methods and outlook].

Authors:  M Jergas; C Glüer; S Grampp; O Köster
Journal:  Aktuelle Radiol       Date:  1992-07
View more
  5 in total

1.  Rachitic changes, demineralization, and fracture risk in healthy infants and toddlers with vitamin D deficiency.

Authors:  Jeannette M Perez-Rossello; Henry A Feldman; Paul K Kleinman; Susan A Connolly; Rick A Fair; Regina M Myers; Catherine M Gordon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Determination of osteopenia in children on digital radiography compared with a DEXA reference standard.

Authors:  Philipose Getachew Mulugeta; Martin Jordanov; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Chang Yu; J Herman Kan
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Detection of incidental vertebral fractures on routine lateral chest radiographs.

Authors:  V Cataldi; T Laporta; N Sverzellati; M De Filippo; M Zompatori
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Postoperative Protocol in the Prevention of Fragility Fractures in Patients with Osteoporosis-Related Fractures.

Authors:  Sebastian Seitz; F Timo Beil; Florian Barvencik; Christoph von Domarus; Johannes M Rueger; Michael Amling
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2008-11-24       Impact factor: 3.693

5.  Preoperative measures of bone mineral density from digital wrist radiographs.

Authors:  Greg Robertson; Robert Wallace; A Hamish R W Simpson; Sarah P Dawson
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 5.853

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.