PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16144280

Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To propose a set of recommendations for optimal bone mineral density (BMD) reporting in postmenopausal women and older men and to provide clinicians with both a BMD diagnostic category and a useful tool to assess an individual's risk of osteoporotic fracture. OPTIONS: The current methods of BMD reporting were reviewed. In this document, we propose that an individual's 10-year absolute fracture risk, rather than BMD alone, be used for fracture risk categorization. Consequently, age, sex, BMD, fragility fracture history, and glucocorticoid use are the basis for the approach outlined in this document. OUTCOMES: An optimal BMD report as proposed in this document will provide clinicians with both a BMD diagnostic category and a useful tool to assess an individual's risk of osteoporotic fracture. A BMD report format, a checklist, and a patient questionnaire are meant to further encourage its use. EVIDENCE: All recommendations were developed using a consensus from clinicians and experts in the field of BMD testing and a standard method for the evaluation and citation of the supporting evidence. VALUES: These recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary working group under the auspices of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada and the Canadian Association of Radiologists. BENEFITS, HARM, AND COSTS: Optimal BMD reports help the practitioner to assess an individual's risk for osteoporotic fracture and to decide whether medical therapy is warranted. RECOMMENDATIONS: The BMD report should include: patient identifiers. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner identifier. BMD results expressed in absolute values (g/cm2; 3 decimal places) and T-score (1 decimal place) for lumbar spine; proximal femur (total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter); and an alternate site (forearm BMD preferred: 1/3 radius, 33% radius or proximal radius) if either hip or spine is not valid. A statement about any limitations due to artifacts, if present. The fracture risk category (low, moderate, or high) as determined by using Tables 3 and 4 and by including major clinical factors that modify absolute fracture risk probability (with an indication of the corresponding absolute 10-year fracture risk of <10%, 10-20%, or >20%). A statement as to whether the change is statistically significant or not for serial measurements. The BMD centre's least significant change for each skeletal site (in g/cm2) should be included. VALIDATION: Recommendations were based on consensus opinion. Since these are the first Canadian recommendations integrating clinical risk factors in a quantitative fracture risk assessment, it is anticipated that these "Recommendations for BMD Reporting in Canada" will be a work in progress and will be updated periodically to accommodate advances in this field.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kerry Siminoski, William D Leslie, Heather Frame, Anthony Hodsman, Robert G Josse, Aliya Khan, Brian C Lentle, Jacques Lévesque, David J Lyons, Giuseppe Tarulli, Jacques P Brown, Canadian Association of Radiologists. 2005. Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16144280/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A repeated measures concordance correlation coefficient.

The concordance correlation coefficient is commonly used to assess agreement between two raters or two methods of measuring a response when the data are measured on a continuous scale. However, the situation may arise in which repeated measurements are taken for each rater or method, e.g. longitudinal studies in clinical trials or bioassay data with subsamples. This paper proposes a coefficient for measuring agreement between two raters or two methods of measuring a response in the presence of repeated measurements. We illustrate the methodology with examples comparing (1) 1-hr versus 2-hr blood draws for measuring cortisol in an asthma clinical trial and (2) two measurements of percentage body fat, from skinfold calipers and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗

Crystallization and preliminary X-ray analysis of a domain in the Runx2 transcription factor that interacts with the 1alpha,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3 receptor.

The Runx2 transcription factor is a key regulator of osteoblast differentiation. In response to 1alpha,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3, Runx2 may interact with the 1alpha,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3 receptor (VDR) in the promoter of target genes, producing a synergic activation of their transcription. Previous studies have suggested that the motifs responsible for the VDR-Runx2 interaction are contained within the 230-361 domain of Runx2. In this work, we confirmed by GST-pull down that Runx2(I(209-361)) is sufficient to interact with the VDR. To obtain structural information, GST-Runx2(I(209-361)) protein was overexpressed in Escherichia coli, purified and crystallized using the hanging-drop vapor-diffusion method and polyethyleneglycol as a precipitant. The crystals were found to diffract to a maximum resolution of 2.7 A and a complete data set to a 3.3 A resolution was collected and analyzed. The crystals belong to the tetragonal system, with a space group P4 and unit-cell parameters of a = b = 90.8, and c = 57.2 A. The presence of a monomer of the recombinant GST-Runx2(I(209-361)) in the asymmetric unit gives a V(M) of 2.7 A(3) Da(-1) and a solvent content of 54.8%.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗

Quantifying the treatment effect explained by markers in the presence of measurement error.

Surrogate markers or intermediate markers are important in identifying subjects with high risk of a serious disease or for monitoring disease progression of a subject on treatment. Quantifying the proportion of treatment effect (PTE) explained by markers has been studied extensively. Due to reasons such as biological variation, limited machine precision, etc. markers are generally measured with error. The estimated PTE ignoring the measurement error could be biased, which may lead to incorrect conclusions. In this article, we adjust for the measurement error using regression calibration to construct a less biased estimator of excess relative odds, a quantity to measure the treatment effect explained by markers. The method is applied to data from a clinical study in osteoporosis.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗