Literature DB >> 16821003

Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry: part 1: errors and diagnosis.

K Engelke1, C-C Glüer.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Bone densitometry is one of the main pillars in the assessment of osteoporosis. The most important modalities are dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and quantitative ultrasound (QUS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For each modality a variety of technical solutions and numerous commercial devices are available and widely used for patient measurements. While the field of bone densitometry may be considered mature, new modalities and devices are being introduced. Consequently, there is a constant need to assess and compare the quality of bone densitometry approaches and devices in a rigorous way.
RESULTS: The International Commission on Radiation Units has commissioned a report on bone densitometry to address some of these issues, in particular to provide clear definitions of quantities and units used and to describe parameters and methods that can be used to compare and standardize densitometric equipment and measurements. One of the core chapters of the report summarizes quality and performance measures in bone densitometry. It is divided into four sections: physical performance measures, diagnosis, fracture risk, and monitoring. Here we publish part 1 of this chapter containing the first two sections: physical performance measures and issues in diagnosing osteoporosis.
CONCLUSION: Following the international standard (ISO 5725-1), trueness, bias, repeatability, and reproducibility are defined along with terms common to osteoporosis research, such as accuracy and precision. Building on the conceptual definition of osteoporosis, diagnostic criteria are defined and discussed including criteria for reference data. Based on this, clinical performance measures commonly used for the diagnosis of osteoporosis are reviewed and discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16821003     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-005-0039-0

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


  18 in total

1.  Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques.

Authors:  C C Glüer
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Authors:  J A Kanis; C C Glüer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Standardization of proximal femur BMD measurements. International Committee for Standards in Bone Measurement.

Authors:  J Hanson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Polyethylene-based water- and bone-equivalent materials for calibration phantoms in quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  W A Kalender; C Suess; U Faust
Journal:  Biomed Tech (Berl)       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 1.411

Review 6.  Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.965

7.  Bone density variation and its effects on risk of vertebral deformity in men and women studied in thirteen European centers: the EVOS Study.

Authors:  M Lunt; D Felsenberg; J Reeve; L Benevolenskaya; J Cannata; J Dequeker; C Dodenhof; J A Falch; P Masaryk; H A Pols; G Poor; D M Reid; C Scheidt-Nave; K Weber; J Varlow; J A Kanis; T W O'Neill; A J Silman
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  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

9.  Classification of osteoporosis in the elderly is dependent on site-specific analysis.

Authors:  S L Greenspan; L Maitland-Ramsey; E Myers
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.333

10.  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

View more
  23 in total

1.  Estimation of bone mineral density in children from diagnostic CT images: a comparison of methods with and without an internal calibration standard.

Authors:  Alexander H Habashy; Xiaowei Yan; J Keenan Brown; Xiaoping Xiong; Sue C Kaste
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  The impact of accurate positioning on measurements made by peripheral QCT in the distal radius.

Authors:  E J Marjanovic; K A Ward; J E Adams
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-11-04       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Characterization of knee osteoarthritis-related changes in trabecular bone using texture parameters at various levels of spatial resolution-a simulation study.

Authors:  Torsten Lowitz; Oleg Museyko; Valerie Bousson; Willi A Kalender; Jean Denis Laredo; Klaus Engelke
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2014-12-03

4.  Hand bone mineral density is associated with both total hip and lumbar spine bone mineral density in post-menopausal women with RA.

Authors:  Sonali P Desai; Ellen M Gravallese; Nancy A Shadick; Roberta Glass; Jing Cui; Michelle Frits; Lori B Chibnik; Nancy Maher; Michael E Weinblatt; Daniel H Solomon
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 7.580

5.  Radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry for osteoporosis diagnosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck.

Authors:  M Di Paola; D Gatti; O Viapiana; L Cianferotti; L Cavalli; C Caffarelli; F Conversano; E Quarta; P Pisani; G Girasole; A Giusti; M Manfredini; G Arioli; M Matucci-Cerinic; G Bianchi; R Nuti; S Gonnelli; M L Brandi; M Muratore; M Rossini
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 6.  Diagnostic imaging of osteoporosis and sarcopenia: a narrative review.

Authors:  Carmelo Messina; Gabriele Maffi; Jacopo Antonino Vitale; Fabio Massimo Ulivieri; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Luca Maria Sconfienza
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-02

7.  Navel jewelry artifacts and intravertebral variation in spine bone densitometry in adolescents and young women.

Authors:  Susan M Ott; Laura E Ichikawa; Andrea Z LaCroix; Delia Scholes
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 2.617

8.  Quantitative ultrasound measurements and vitamin D status in the assessment of hip fracture risk in a nationally representative population sample.

Authors:  M Kauppi; O Impivaara; J Mäki; M Heliövaara; A Jula
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  [Metabolic bone diseases].

Authors:  F Jakob
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 10.  European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  J A Kanis; N Burlet; C Cooper; P D Delmas; J-Y Reginster; F Borgstrom; R Rizzoli
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.