Literature DB >> 16537116

The importance of spectrum bias on bone density monitoring in clinical practice.

William D Leslie1.   

Abstract

Spectrum bias can occur if a diagnostic test is applied to a patient population of different disease severity than was used in the original test validation. Despite recommendations that bone mineral density (BMD) precision and follow-up assessment be based upon absolute measurements (in g/cm(2)), the use of relative change (in percent) is still frequently encountered. The current study was undertaken to compare absolute and relative precision and change in bone mineral density (BMD) categorization for lower and higher BMD ranges. Patients with baseline and follow-up BMD measurements (1,317 spine pairs and 1,259 hip scan pairs) were identified in the population-based Manitoba Bone Density Program database (1994-2002). Relative (percent) and absolute (g/cm(2)) least significant change (LSC) limits were from a convenience sample from the same population (198 spine scan pairs and 193 hip scan pairs). The main outcome measure was the fraction with BMD change exceeding LSC limits. BMD range strongly affected change category using a pooled relative LSC (lower 33.5% versus higher 20.0%, P < 0.0001) but a range-concordant LSC eliminated this difference (lower 28.3% versus higher 27.1%, P > 0.2). Categorization according to absolute LSC showed no significant difference between lower and higher BMD range patients (27.8% versus 23.4%, P = 0.13). Similar results were seen for the total hip. Disagreement in categorizing spine change occurred in 13.6% (95% CI 11.7-15.4%) using relative LSC but only 1.7% (95% CI 1.0-2.4, P < 0.00001) using absolute LSC. Similar disagreement was seen for the hip (relative LSC 14.0% [95% CI 12.1-15.9%] versus absolute LSC 3.1% [95% CI 2.1-4.1%]; P < 0.00001). In conclusion, spectrum bias was observed when BMD monitoring was based upon relative change (in percent) rather than absolute measurements (g/cm(2)). Categorization of change based upon absolute change in BMD is strongly preferred in the routine clinical setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16537116     DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2006.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone        ISSN: 1873-2763            Impact factor:   4.398


  18 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.  The effect of weight and weight change on the long-term precision of spine and hip DXA measurements.

Authors:  R Rajamanohara; J Robinson; J Rymer; R Patel; I Fogelman; G M Blake
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Optimal decision criterion for detecting change in bone mineral density during serial monitoring: a Bayesian approach.

Authors:  M Sadatsafavi; A Moayyeri; L Wang; W D Leslie
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-04-22       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Ankle fractures do not predict osteoporotic fractures in women with or without diabetes.

Authors:  J M Pritchard; L M Giangregorio; G Ioannidis; A Papaioannou; J D Adachi; W D Leslie
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Competing mortality and fracture risk assessment.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix; X Wu
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Effects of anti-resorptive agents on trabecular bone score (TBS) in older women.

Authors:  M A Krieg; B Aubry-Rozier; D Hans; W D Leslie
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Prediction of hip and other osteoporotic fractures from hip geometry in a large clinical cohort.

Authors:  W D Leslie; P S Pahlavan; J F Tsang; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Does diabetes modify the effect of FRAX risk factors for predicting major osteoporotic and hip fracture?

Authors:  W D Leslie; S N Morin; L M Lix; S R Majumdar
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.