Literature DB >> 16036084

Pitfalls in bone mineral density measurements.

Paul D Miller1.   

Abstract

Bone mineral density (BMD) measurements have been the single greatest advancement for osteoporosis. BMD measurements have helped define a prefracture diagnosis of osteoporosis, predict fracture risk in postmenopausal women and elderly men, and monitor the course of disease processes that negatively affect bone or therapeutic agents that can improve bone strength. Despite the large amount of clinical, epidemiologic, and basic science data that has advanced our understanding of BMD performance and interpretation, many pitfalls in BMD performance and interpretation pervade the practice of bone densitometry. However, all of these pitfalls can be overcome. Proper quality control and clinical interpretation of BMD computer printout reports are paramount for correct diagnosis, risk assessment, and serial BMD measurements. Though BMD application(s) are a clinical tool that can and should be used by many different primary care and specialty physicians, the performances and interpretations are not simple processes. Proper education and training in the use of BMD technologies provides the means of achieving the great intent that BMD measurements are capable of providing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 16036084     DOI: 10.1007/s11914-004-0005-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep        ISSN: 1544-1873            Impact factor:   5.096


  11 in total

1.  Prediction of fracture risk in postmenopausal white women with peripheral bone densitometry: evidence from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Paul D Miller; Ethel S Siris; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Kenneth G Faulkner; Lois E Wehren; Thomas A Abbott; Ya-Ting Chen; Marc L Berger; Arthur C Santora; Louis M Sherwood
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Ten year probabilities of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD and diagnostic thresholds.

Authors:  J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; A Dawson; C De Laet; B Jonsson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment.

Authors:  E S Siris; P D Miller; E Barrett-Connor; K G Faulkner; L E Wehren; T A Abbott; M L Berger; A C Santora; L M Sherwood
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-12-12       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis: do the accepted normal ranges lead to overdiagnosis?

Authors:  A I Ahmed; G M Blake; J M Rymer; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Age and bone mass as predictors of fracture in a prospective study.

Authors:  S L Hui; C W Slemenda; C C Johnston
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 6.  Executive summary International Society for Clinical Densitometry position development conference Denver, Colorado July 20-22, 2001.

Authors:  Leon Lenchik; Edward S Leib; Ronald C Hamdy; Neil C Binkley; Paul D Miller; Nelson B Watts
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.963

7.  Discordance in patient classification using T-scores.

Authors:  K G Faulkner; E von Stetten; P Miller
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.963

8.  Importance of precision in bone density measurements.

Authors:  S L Bonnick; C C Johnston; M Kleerekoper; R Lindsay; P Miller; L Sherwood; E Siris
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.963

Review 9.  Official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Authors:  Edward S Leib; E Michael Lewiecki; Neil Binkley; Ronald C Hamdy
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.963

10.  The challenges of peripheral bone density testing: which patients need additional central density skeletal measurements?

Authors:  P D Miller; S L Bonnick; C C Johnston; M Kleerekoper; R L Lindsay; L M Sherwood; E S Siris
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  [Pitfalls and difficulties in interpretation of bone densitometry].

Authors:  R Scholz; G Borte; G von Salis-Soglio; C-E Heyde
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  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

3.  Appropriate osteoporosis treatment by family physicians in response to FRAX vs CAROC reporting: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Karen A Beattie; George Ioannidis; Joy C MacDermid; Ruby Grewal; Alexandra Papaioannou; Jonathan D Adachi; Anthony B Hodsman
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 2.617

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.