Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Osteoporosis International 9/2006

01-09-2006 | Review

Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry

Part 1: Errors and diagnosis

Authors: K. Engelke, C.-C. Glüer

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 9/2006

Login to get access

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.
Footnotes
1
Formerly, trueness was denoted as accuracy that now encompasses trueness and precision.
 
2
Formerly, bias was often denoted as accuracy error.
 
3
In the literature, the term “precision error” is often used for imprecision.
 
4
The ICRU report will endorse the use of BMDa to distinguish areal from volumetric BMD measurements. BMD only refers to volumetric density as measured by QCT; BMDa denotes areal BMD as measured by DXA.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference International Organization for Standardization (1994) ISO 5725-1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. ISO, Geneva International Organization for Standardization (1994) ISO 5725-1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. ISO, Geneva
2.
go back to reference Kalender WA, Suess C, Faust U (1988) Polyethylene-based water- and bone-equivalent materials for calibration phantoms in quantitative computed tomography. Biomed Tech (Berl) 33:73–76CrossRef Kalender WA, Suess C, Faust U (1988) Polyethylene-based water- and bone-equivalent materials for calibration phantoms in quantitative computed tomography. Biomed Tech (Berl) 33:73–76CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Duck F (1990) Physical properties of tissue. Academic Press, London Duck F (1990) Physical properties of tissue. Academic Press, London
4.
go back to reference Glüer CC, Blake G, Lu Y et al (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5:262–270 Glüer CC, Blake G, Lu Y et al (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5:262–270
5.
go back to reference Consensus Development Conference (1993) Diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 94:646–650CrossRef Consensus Development Conference (1993) Diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 94:646–650CrossRef
7.
go back to reference World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO, Geneva World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO, Geneva
8.
go back to reference Glüer CC (1999) Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques. J Bone Miner Res 14:1952–1962PubMedCrossRef Glüer CC (1999) Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques. J Bone Miner Res 14:1952–1962PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kanis JA (1997) Diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 7(Suppl 3)S108–S116PubMed Kanis JA (1997) Diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 7(Suppl 3)S108–S116PubMed
10.
go back to reference Melton III LJ, A. E, Chrischilles EA et al (1992) How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7:1005–1010 Melton III LJ, A. E, Chrischilles EA et al (1992) How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7:1005–1010
11.
go back to reference De Laet CE, van Hout BA, Burger H, Hofman A, Pols HA (1997) Bone density and risk of hip fracture in men and women: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 315:221–225PubMed De Laet CE, van Hout BA, Burger H, Hofman A, Pols HA (1997) Bone density and risk of hip fracture in men and women: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 315:221–225PubMed
13.
go back to reference Kanis JA, Glüer CC 2000 An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 11:192–202 Kanis JA, Glüer CC 2000 An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 11:192–202
14.
go back to reference Faulkner KG, von Stetten E, Miller P (1999) Discordance in patient classification using T-scores. J Clin Densitom 2:343–350PubMedCrossRef Faulkner KG, von Stetten E, Miller P (1999) Discordance in patient classification using T-scores. J Clin Densitom 2:343–350PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Greenspan SL, Maitland-Ramsey L, Myers ER (1996) Classification of osteoporosis in the elderly is dependent on site-specific analysis. Calcif Tissue Int 58:409–414PubMedCrossRef Greenspan SL, Maitland-Ramsey L, Myers ER (1996) Classification of osteoporosis in the elderly is dependent on site-specific analysis. Calcif Tissue Int 58:409–414PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lu Y, Genant HK, Shepherd J et al (2001) Classification of osteoporosis based on bone mineral densities. J Bone Miner Res 16:901–910 Lu Y, Genant HK, Shepherd J et al (2001) Classification of osteoporosis based on bone mineral densities. J Bone Miner Res 16:901–910
17.
go back to reference Genant HK, Grampp S, Glüer CC et al (1994) Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 9:1503–1514 Genant HK, Grampp S, Glüer CC et al (1994) Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 9:1503–1514
18.
go back to reference Hanson J, and International Committee for Standards in Bone Measurement (1997) Letter to the editor. Osteoporos Int 7:500–501PubMedCrossRef Hanson J, and International Committee for Standards in Bone Measurement (1997) Letter to the editor. Osteoporos Int 7:500–501PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Shepherd JA, Cheng XG, Lu Y et al (2002) Universal standardization of forearm bone densitometry. J Bone Miner Res 17:734–745 Shepherd JA, Cheng XG, Lu Y et al (2002) Universal standardization of forearm bone densitometry. J Bone Miner Res 17:734–745
20.
go back to reference Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL et al (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–489 Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL et al (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–489
21.
go back to reference Lunt M, Felsenberg D, Reeve J et al (1997) Bone density variation and its effects on risk of vertebral deformity in men and women studied in thirteen European centers: the EVOS Study. J Bone Miner Res 12:1883–1894 Lunt M, Felsenberg D, Reeve J et al (1997) Bone density variation and its effects on risk of vertebral deformity in men and women studied in thirteen European centers: the EVOS Study. J Bone Miner Res 12:1883–1894
22.
go back to reference Kleerekoper M (1999) Appendix. In: Favus MJ (ed) Primer on the metabolic bone diseases and disorders of mineral metabolism. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia Kleerekoper M (1999) Appendix. In: Favus MJ (ed) Primer on the metabolic bone diseases and disorders of mineral metabolism. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
Metadata
Title
Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry
Part 1: Errors and diagnosis
Authors
K. Engelke
C.-C. Glüer
Publication date
01-09-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 9/2006
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-0039-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2006

Osteoporosis International 9/2006 Go to the issue