DXA quality matters.

The proliferation of devices to measure bone mineral density (BMD), with large numbers of technologists operating these instruments and numerous physicians interpreting/reporting the results, raises concern regarding the quality of the studies. High quality BMD measurement and reporting is essential, since referring healthcare providers rely on these reports to make patient care decisions that include additional medical evaluation (laboratory or imaging tests), drug therapy (starting, stopping, or changing), and possibly referral to an osteoporosis specialist. Incorrect BMD acquisition or reporting may generate unnecessary medical expenses and result in therapeutic decisions that could be harmful to patients. Contrary to the common misperception that BMD measurement and interpretation is a simple procedure requiring no special expertise, densitometer maintenance/operation, data acquisition, and interpretation/reporting of the results are skills that must be acquired and maintained. We recommend that technologists and clinicians involved with performing or interpreting BMD tests be educated and trained in bone densitometry and that they update their skills regularly. We also suggest that they provide demonstration of proficiency in bone densitometry in order to assure patients, referring healthcare providers, and payers of medical services that these skills have been acquired and maintained.

[1]  H. Genant,et al.  Enhanced precision with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry , 1992, Calcified Tissue International.

[2]  Gordon Guyatt,et al.  Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. I. Systematic reviews of randomized trials in osteoporosis: introduction and methodology. , 2002, Endocrine reviews.

[3]  C. Hayes,et al.  Dual X-ray absorptiometry: recognizing image artifacts and pathology. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Nelson B. Watts,et al.  Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) , 2004, Osteoporosis International.

[5]  W. Hayes,et al.  Fracture prediction for the proximal femur using finite element models: Part I--Linear analysis. , 1991, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[6]  Gordon Guyatt,et al.  Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. IX: Summary of meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. , 2002, Endocrine reviews.

[7]  L. Melton,et al.  The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. , 1995, Bone.

[8]  E. Lewiecki,et al.  Bone density testing in clinical practice. , 2006, Arquivos brasileiros de endocrinologia e metabologia.

[9]  H. Genant,et al.  Radiation exposure in bone mineral density assessment. , 1999, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[10]  C. Cooper,et al.  Population-based study of survival after osteoporotic fractures. , 1993, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  O. Johnell,et al.  Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures , 1996 .

[12]  P. Miller,et al.  Antifracture efficacy of antiresorptive agents are related to changes in bone density. , 2000, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[13]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Physician board certification and the care and outcomes of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction , 2006, Journal of General Internal Medicine.