4.0 Review

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry technical issues: The 2007 ISCD Official Positions

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 109-122

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.009

Keywords

dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; high bone density; male osteoporosis; osteoporosis risk factors; perimenopause

Ask authors/readers for more resources

At the 2007 Position Development Conference, the Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Technical Task Force investigated three major areas of bone density testing. Although bone mineral density (BMD) testing in men had previously been reviewed at the 2005 Position Development Conference, we reviewed the most recent data in men to develop appropriate indications for bone density testing in men. We continue to recommend screening at age 70 and discuss the clinical risk factors that may be an appropriate indication for earlier BMD testing. Menopausal transition (perimenopause) was considered an important time to consider BMD evaluation because bone loss may be significant prior to menopause. However, because fracture risk is inherently low in women of this age without other risk factors, screening BMD testing is not appropriate. We discuss the risk factors that are strong indicators of fracture risk that may be increased during the menopause transition. The presence of these risk factors are appropriate indications for BMD testing with applicability of WHO diagnostic categorization. The issue of establishing a high threshold for BMD was investigated thoroughly and the current literature was reviewed. Despite the fact there is agreement that all BMD values greater than T-score -1.0 are not normal, it was felt that because of the paucity of sensitivity data and confounding factors such as high body mass index, an upper threshold could not be established or recommended at this time. This was felt to be an important area for further research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available