Skip to main content

Reporting Densitometry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bone Densitometry in Clinical Practice

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Practice ((CCP))

  • 1430 Accesses

Abstract

The computer-generated printouts from densitometry devices have become increasingly sophisticated as the field of densitometry itself has matured. Skeletal images are clearer on the printouts with improvements in both image and printer resolution. In addition to the measured skeletal parameters from the device, World Health Organization (WHO) criteria (1) diagnoses, fracture risk assessments, and colorful graphic comparisons of the patient’s BMD to their peers are commonly found. The addition of WHO diagnostic categories and fracture risk assessments to the densitometry printout is a departure from earlier practices in which such clinical interpretations of the numerical data were deemed inappropriate in the absence of a physician’s review of the data. In fact, such densitometry computer-generated assessments are still inappropriate in the absence of a careful review by the densitometrist. It is also absolutely necessary that the densitometrist offer necessary clinical guidance to the referring physician based on the densitometry findings. Such guidance is far beyond the scope of the computer-generated printout.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Chapter 9 for a discussion of the 1991 and 1993 consensus conferences’ definition of osteoporosis.

  2. 2.

    See Chapter 10 for a discussion of these methods for predicting fracture risk.

  3. 3.

    Complete blood count

  4. 4.

    Serum protein electrophoresis

  5. 5.

    Immuno protein electrophoresis

  6. 6.

    These antibodies may be present in cases of non-tropical sprue.

  7. 7.

    The trade name, Reclast, is used here to distinguish this form of zoledronate from Zometa, for which the dose, regimen, and indications are different.

  8. 8.

    See Chapter 11 for a discussion of monitoring changes in bone density.

  9. 9.

    By significant, it is meant that changes, which equal or exceed the least significant change that are likely to be seen.

  10. 10.

    See Appendix VII for the provisions of the Bone Mass Measurement Act of 1997.

  11. 11.

    See Chapter 11 for a discussion of the RMS-SD.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO technical report series. Geneva: WHO, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fuleihan GE, Stock JL, McClung MR, Saifi G. A national random survey of bone mineral density reporting in the United States. J Clin Densitom 2002;5:3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Indications and reporting for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom 2004;7(1):37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hodgson SF, Watts NB, Bilezikian JP, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2001 edition, with selected updates for 2003. Endocr Pract 2003;9(6):544–564.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. National Osteoporosis Foundation. Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. 1–30. 2008. Washington, D.C., National Osteoporosis Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kanis JA, Gluer C-C. An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:192–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamdy RC, Petak SM, Lenchik L. Which central dual x-ray absorptiometry skeletal sites and regions of interest should be used to determine the diagnosis of osteoporosis? J Clin Densitom 2002;5:S11–S17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Consensus Development Conference. Prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1991;90:107–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Consensus Development Conference. Diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1993;94:646–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. National Institutes of Health. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 2001;285(6):785–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson BE, Lucasey B, Robinson RP, Lukert BP. Contributing diagnoses in osteoporosis: the value of a complete medical evaluation. Arch Intern Med 1989;149:1069–1072.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tannenbaum C, Clark J, Schwartzman K, et al. Yield of laboratory testing to identify secondary contributors to osteoporosis in otherwise healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:4431–4437.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: 2006 position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause 2006;13(3):340–367.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Leib ES, Lewiecki EM, Binkley N, Hamdy RC. Official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. J Clin Densitom 2004;7(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Federal Register 42 CFR Part 410; Vol 63, No. 121, June 24, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schousboe JT, Vokes T, Broy SB, et al. Vertebral fracture assessment: the 2007 ISCD official positions. J Clin Densitom 2008;11:92–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sydney Lou Bonnick MD, FACP .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bonnick, S.L. (2010). Reporting Densitometry. In: Bone Densitometry in Clinical Practice. Current Clinical Practice. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-499-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-499-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-60327-498-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-499-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics