Literature DB >> 3212489

Accuracy of visually estimated bone mineralization in routine radiographs of the lower extremity.

V Finsen1, S Anda.   

Abstract

In order to determine the accuracy of reports of demineralization based on observations of routine radiographs of the peripheral skeleton, pairs of radiographs with known difference in bone mineral density (BMD) were shown to a panel of medically qualified observers. No significant difference in the rate of correct identification of osteopenia of metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone was observed. Experienced observers were more accurate than their juniors. The probability of correct identification was greater than 0.5 at all levels of BMD difference, and in general increased with increasing BMD differences, reaching a probability of 0.7 at a BMD difference of 30%. The probability increased considerably when the assessment relied on the majority vote of three or more observers. It is concluded that it is inadvisable for a single observer to judge BMD when studying routine X-ray studies of the peripheral skeleton.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3212489     DOI: 10.1007/bf00401810

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  12 in total

1.  The radiological diagnosis of osteoporosis: a new approach.

Authors:  E BARNETT; B E NORDIN
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1960-07       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  Definitions, terminology and classification of metabolic bone disorders.

Authors:  E C REIFENSTEIN
Journal:  Clin Orthop       Date:  1957

3.  [Experimental study on the first radiological manifestations of osteoporosis].

Authors:  D G FUSI
Journal:  Radiol Clin       Date:  1953-03

4.  Bone destruction not demonstrable by radiography.

Authors:  G M ARDRAN
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1951-02       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Observer variation in skeletal radiology.

Authors:  W P Cockshott; W M Park
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  A comparative estimation of the combined cortical thickness of various bone sites.

Authors:  R A Bloom
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  [Possibilities of clinical determination of the skeletal calcium content].

Authors:  E Krokowski
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  1966-01-14       Impact factor: 0.628

Review 8.  Assessment of bone mineral. Part 2.

Authors:  H W Wahner; W L Dunn; B L Riggs
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 9.  Assessment of bone mineral content and bone mass by non-invasive radiologic methods.

Authors:  J Andresen; H E Nielsen
Journal:  Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh)       Date:  1986 Nov-Dec

10.  Clinical, biochemical, radiographic, epidemiologic, and economic features of osteoporosis.

Authors:  C C Johnston; S Epstein
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 2.472

View more
  4 in total

1.  Bone density measurement in osteogenesis imperfecta may well be important.

Authors:  C R Paterson; P A Mole
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 2.401

2.  Early Detection of Osteoporosis by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry.

Authors:  Asadullah Makhdoom; Makhdoom Rahopoto; Khaleeque Ahmed Siddiqui; Ghulam Ali Qureshi
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.088

3.  Cortical hypertrophy with a short, curved uncemented hip stem does not have any clinical impact during early follow-up.

Authors:  Michael W Maier; Marcus R Streit; Moritz M Innmann; Marlis Krüger; Jan Nadorf; J Philippe Kretzer; Volker Ewerbeck; Tobias Gotterbarm
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  How reliable is a radiological report in osteoporosis in diagnosing low bone density?

Authors:  C D McCullagh; K McCoy; V L S Crawford; H Taggart
Journal:  Ulster Med J       Date:  2003-05
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.