Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Introduction to Conventions in Densitometry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bone Densitometry for Technologists

  • 1445 Accesses

Abstract

In any discussion of bone densitometry, many terms and conventions are used that are unique to this field. In the chapters that follow, these terms and conventions will be used repeatedly. In an effort to facilitate the reading and comprehension of those chapters, a preliminary review of some of these unique aspects of bone densitometry is offered here.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Area is calculated by multiplying the height  ×  width.

  2. 2.

    Volume is calculated by multiplying the height  ×  width  ×  depth.

  3. 3.

    See Chap. 6 for a discussion of the European Spine Phantom.

  4. 4.

    NHANES III was conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the study, proximal femur bone density data was collected on 7,116 men and women aged 20 and older [12]. There were a total of 3,217 non-Hispanic whites, 1,831 non-Hispanic blacks, and 1,840 Mexican-Americans in this study population. There were no specific inclusion or exclusion criteria used to select individuals for bone density measurements in this study other than the presence of prior hip fracture or pregnancy which was ground for exclusion. The individuals who received bone density measurements were otherwise part of a random sample of the population.

References

  1. Recker RR. Embryology, anatomy, and microstructure of bone. In: Coe FL, Favus MJ, editors. Disorders of bone and mineral metabolism. New York: Raven; 1992. p. 219–40.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carter DR, Bouxsein ML, Marcus R. New approaches for interpreting projected bone densitometry data. J Bone Miner Res. 1992;7:137–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jergas M, Breitenseher M, Gluer CC, Yu W, Genant HK. Estimates of volumetric bone density from projectional measurements improve the discriminatory capability of dual X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:1101–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Phillips JL. Interpreting individual measures. In: Statistical thinking. New York: WH Freeman, 1982; 62–78.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baim S, Leonard MB, Bianchi ML, et al. Official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and executive summary of the 2007 ISCD pediatric position development conference. J Clin Densitom. 2008;11:6–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Genant HK, Grampp S, Gluer CC, et al. Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res. 1994;9:1503–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hanson J. Standardization of femur BMD. J Bone Miner Res. 1997;12:1316–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lu Y, Fuerst T, Hui S, Genant HK. Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and Ward’s triangle. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12:438–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shepherd JA, Cheng XG, Lu Y, et al. Universal standardization of forearm bone densitometry. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:734–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pocock NA, Sambrook PN, Nguyen T, Kelly P, Freund J, Eisman JA. Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by dual X-ray absorptiometry: comparison of Lunar and Hologic instruments. J Bone Miner Res. 1992;7:1081–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Laskey MA, Crisp AJ, Cole TJ, Compston JE. Comparison of the effect of different reference data on Lunar DPX and Hologic QDR-1000 dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers. Br J Radiol. 1992;65:1124–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Faulkner KG, Roberts LA, McClung MR. Discrepancies in normative data between Lunar and Hologic DXA systems. Osteoporos Int. 1996;6:432–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, et al. Proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int. 1995;5:389–409.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, et al. Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int. 1998;8:468–89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. The Writing Group for the ISCD Position Development Conference. J Clin Densitom 2004;7:45–49.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research Center of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    Sydney Lou Bonnick MD, FACP, CCD & Lori Ann Lewis MRT, CDT

Authors
  1. Sydney Lou Bonnick MD, FACP, CCD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lori Ann Lewis MRT, CDT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bonnick, S.L., Lewis, L.A. (2013). An Introduction to Conventions in Densitometry. In: Bone Densitometry for Technologists. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3625-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3625-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3624-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3625-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation