Literature DB >> 19633809

Changes in distribution of bone densitometry equipment from 1996 to 2006 in Japan.

Hirose Yamauchi1, Masao Fukunaga, Akira Nishikawa, Hajime Orimo.   

Abstract

Many types of bone densitometry equipment are available in Japan, but the numbers of such machines and the numbers of institutions that offer bone densitometry have not been clarified. We analyzed the data from annual surveys conducted by the Japan Osteoporosis Foundation from 1996 to 2006, and we obtained the following results on the use of densitometry equipment: (1) In 1996 there were 6,687 units of bone densitometry equipment in 6,483 institutions in Japan; in 2006 there were 16,371 units in 15,020 institutions. (2) In 2006, of the types of institutions with bone densitometry equipment, the number of clinics was the highest, followed in order by general hospitals, other types of institutions, screening institutions and university hospitals. Rates of increase in the installation of equipment in clinics and other types of institutions were high during the 11-year period from 1996. (3) From 1996 to 2006 the region of interest most frequently used for bone densitometry was the radius. However, during the 11-year period, the proportion of radial densitometry equipment in all institutions with bone densitometry equipment decreased, whereas the proportion of calcaneal densitometry equipment increased. (4) The number of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) units was the highest from 1996 to 2006. However, the proportion of DXA machines in all institutions with bone densitometry equipment decreased over the 11-year period, whereas the proportion of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) machines increased. (5) In 2006, bone densitometry equipment was available in 118 institutions per million Japanese people. Central DXA (spine/hip) equipment was available in 15 per million, radial DXA equipment in 63 per million, and calcaneal QUS equipment in 44 per million. (6) In 2006, among those places with bone densitometry equipment, 46% of university hospitals, 14% of general hospitals, 12% of screening institutions, 5% of clinics, and 6% of other types of institutions possessed more than one type of densitometry equipment. (7) In 2006, central DXA (spine/hip) was frequently available in university hospitals, radial densitometry equipment in general hospitals and clinics, and calcaneal densitometry equipment in screening institutions and other types of institutions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19633809     DOI: 10.1007/s00774-009-0099-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab        ISSN: 0914-8779            Impact factor:   2.626


  10 in total

1.  Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe.

Authors:  J A Kanis; O Johnell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-12-24       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Photon absorptiometry, bone densitometry and the challenge of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Colin E Webber
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-06-20       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 3.  Bone densitometry and the diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  G M Blake; I Fogelman
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.446

Review 4.  Radiologic bone assessment in the evaluation of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Richard Brunader; David K Shelton
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2002-04-01       Impact factor: 3.292

5.  Heel bone ultrasound predicts non-spine fracture in Japanese men and women.

Authors:  S Fujiwara; T Sone; K Yamazaki; N Yoshimura; K Nakatsuka; N Masunari; S Fujita; K Kushida; M Fukunaga
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-09-30       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Discrimination of proximal hip fracture by quantitative ultrasound measurement at the radius.

Authors:  M Weiss; A Ben-Shlomo; P Hagag; S Ish-Shalom
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study.

Authors:  D Hans; P Dargent-Molina; A M Schott; J L Sebert; C Cormier; P O Kotzki; P D Delmas; J M Pouilles; G Breart; P J Meunier
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-08-24       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Broadband ultrasound attenuation predicts fractures strongly and independently of densitometry in older women. A prospective study. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  D C Bauer; C C Glüer; J A Cauley; T M Vogt; K E Ensrud; H K Genant; D M Black
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1997-03-24

Review 9.  Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-02-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Osteoporosis and bone densitometry.

Authors:  K Ott
Journal:  Radiol Technol       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec
  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Current status of hip bone densitometry in Japan: a nationwide survey.

Authors:  Hirose Yamauchi; Masao Fukunaga; Akira Nishikawa; Hajime Orimo
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 2.626

2.  Application of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX(®)) and determination of suitable cut-off values during primary screening in specific health check-ups in Japan.

Authors:  Shinichi Nakatoh; Yuki Takemaru
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2013-03-30       Impact factor: 2.626

3.  Assessment of Distal Radius Bone Mineral Density in Osteoporosis Patients Receiving Denosumab, Including Those with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Those Receiving Oral Glucocorticoids.

Authors:  Hiroaki Matsuno
Journal:  Drugs R D       Date:  2016-12
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.