4.0 Article

Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Interpretation and Reporting in Children and Adolescents: The Revised 2013 ISCD Pediatric Official Positions

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 225-242

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2014.01.003

Keywords

Bone mineral content; bone mineral density; children; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; guidelines

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [HCS/P10/009] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Department of Health [HCS/P10/009] Funding Source: Medline
  3. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [HCS/P10/009] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Official Revised Positions on reporting of densitometry results in children represent current expert recommendations to assist health care providers determine which skeletal sites should be measured, which, if any, adjustments should be made, reference databases to be used, and the elements to include in a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry report. The recommended scanning sites remain the total body less head and the posterior-anterior spine. Other sites such as the proximal femur, lateral distal femur, lateral vertebral assessment, and forearm are discussed but are only recommended for specific pediatric populations. Different methods of interpreting bone density scans in children with short stature or growth delay are presented. The use of bone mineral apparent density and height-adjusted Z-scores are recommended as suitable size adjustment techniques. The validity of appropriate reference databases and technical considerations to consider when upgrading software and hardware remain unchanged. Updated reference data sets for all contemporary bone densitometers are listed. The inclusion of relevant demographic and health information, technical details of the scan, Z-scores, and the wording low bone mass or bone density for Z-scores less than or equal to -2.0 standard deviation are still recommended for clinical practice. The rationale and evidence for the development of the Official Positions are provided. Changes in the grading of quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, and worldwide applicability represent a change in current evidence and/or differences in opinion of the expert panelists used to validate the position statements for the 2013 Position Development Conference.

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