Literature DB >> 16144280

Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada.

Kerry Siminoski1, William D Leslie, Heather Frame, Anthony Hodsman, Robert G Josse, Aliya Khan, Brian C Lentle, Jacques Lévesque, David J Lyons, Giuseppe Tarulli, Jacques P Brown.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To propose a set of recommendations for optimal bone mineral density (BMD) reporting in postmenopausal women and older men and to provide clinicians with both a BMD diagnostic category and a useful tool to assess an individual's risk of osteoporotic fracture. OPTIONS: The current methods of BMD reporting were reviewed. In this document, we propose that an individual's 10-year absolute fracture risk, rather than BMD alone, be used for fracture risk categorization. Consequently, age, sex, BMD, fragility fracture history, and glucocorticoid use are the basis for the approach outlined in this document. OUTCOMES: An optimal BMD report as proposed in this document will provide clinicians with both a BMD diagnostic category and a useful tool to assess an individual's risk of osteoporotic fracture. A BMD report format, a checklist, and a patient questionnaire are meant to further encourage its use. EVIDENCE: All recommendations were developed using a consensus from clinicians and experts in the field of BMD testing and a standard method for the evaluation and citation of the supporting evidence. VALUES: These recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary working group under the auspices of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada and the Canadian Association of Radiologists. BENEFITS, HARM, AND COSTS: Optimal BMD reports help the practitioner to assess an individual's risk for osteoporotic fracture and to decide whether medical therapy is warranted. RECOMMENDATIONS: The BMD report should include: patient identifiers. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner identifier. BMD results expressed in absolute values (g/cm2; 3 decimal places) and T-score (1 decimal place) for lumbar spine; proximal femur (total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter); and an alternate site (forearm BMD preferred: 1/3 radius, 33% radius or proximal radius) if either hip or spine is not valid. A statement about any limitations due to artifacts, if present. The fracture risk category (low, moderate, or high) as determined by using Tables 3 and 4 and by including major clinical factors that modify absolute fracture risk probability (with an indication of the corresponding absolute 10-year fracture risk of <10%, 10-20%, or >20%). A statement as to whether the change is statistically significant or not for serial measurements. The BMD centre's least significant change for each skeletal site (in g/cm2) should be included. VALIDATION: Recommendations were based on consensus opinion. Since these are the first Canadian recommendations integrating clinical risk factors in a quantitative fracture risk assessment, it is anticipated that these "Recommendations for BMD Reporting in Canada" will be a work in progress and will be updated periodically to accommodate advances in this field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16144280

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Assoc Radiol J        ISSN: 0846-5371            Impact factor:   2.248


  68 in total

1.  Bone-density testing interval and transition to osteoporosis.

Authors:  Angela M Cheung; Alexandra Papaioannou
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Fracture-risk calculators: Has their time come?

Authors:  Mark J Bolland
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary.

Authors:  Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  New osteoporosis guidelines for Canada.

Authors:  John A Kanis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  A comparative study of using non-hip bone density inputs with FRAX®.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix; H Johansson; A Oden; E McCloskey; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Osteoporosis knowledge among individuals with recent fragility fracture.

Authors:  L Giangregorio; L Thabane; A Cranney; A Adili; J deBeer; L Dolovich; J D Adachi; A Papaioannou
Journal:  Orthop Nurs       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 0.913

7.  Canadian Consensus Conference on osteoporosis, 2006 update.

Authors:  Jacques P Brown; Michel Fortier; Heather Frame; André Lalonde; Alexandra Papaioannou; Vyta Senikas; Chui Kin Yuen
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2006-02

8.  Minimum sample size requirements for bone density precision assessment produce inconsistency in clinical monitoring.

Authors:  W D Leslie; A Moayyeri
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture--a new understanding based on fracture patients' communication.

Authors:  J E M Sale; M A Gignac; L Frankel; G Hawker; D Beaton; V Elliot-Gibson; E Bogoch
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Comparison between frailty index of deficit accumulation and fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in prediction of risk of fractures.

Authors:  Guowei Li; Lehana Thabane; Alexandra Papaioannou; Jonathan D Adachi
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2015-04-25       Impact factor: 4.398

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.