4.5 Article

Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 229-238

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1811-2

关键词

dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; Europe; fracture probability; hip fracture; osteoporotic fracture; risk assessment; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The availability of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) varies markedly in different countries. There is, however, little information to indicate the optimal requirements for this technology. The principal aim of this study was to estimate the requirements for DXA in Europe for the assessment and treatment of osteoporosis. Three assessment scenarios were chosen. The first envisaged screening of all women with DXA at the age of 65 years. A second scenario comprised a screening programme based on the identification of clinical risk factors with the selective addition of BMD tests in those close to an intervention threshold. The third scenario envisaged a case finding strategy where women aged 65 years were identified on the basis of risk factors and referred for DXA. Requirements for women aged more than 65 years were amortised over a 10-year period. A secondary aim was to estimate the number and cost of osteoporotic fractures in Europe. The requirements for DXA in assessment ranged from 4.21 to 11.21 units/million of the population. The most efficient assessment scenario was the use of clinical risk factors with the selective use of BMD. With this scenario, an additional 6.39 units/million would be required to monitor treatment giving a total requirement of 10.6 units/million. In 2000, the number of osteoporotic fractures was estimated at 3.79 million, of which 0.89 million were hip fractures ( 179,000 hip fractures in men and 711,000 in women). The total direct costs were estimated at 31.7 billion (pound21.165 billion), which were expected to increase to E76.7 billion (pound51.1 billion) in 2050 based on the expected changes in the demography of Europe.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据