Osteoporosis International

, Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 1449–1458 | Cite as

Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry

Part 2: Fracture risk
  • C. C. Glüer
  • Y. Lu
  • K. Engelke



This is part 2 of a core chapter of the forthcoming Report on Bone Densitometry commissioned by the International Commission on Radiation Units (ICRU). It is written with the aim to review definitions of quantities and units used in bone densitometry research and to describe parameters and methods that can be used to compare and standardize densitometric equipment and measurements. Part 2 of this chapter contains the section on fracture risk.

Performance measures in the assessment of fracture risk

Building on concepts of risk assessment, including risk ratios and odds ratios, we review statistical concepts commonly used in cross-sectional and prospective fracture studies. Performance measures are defined that allow a comparison of the ability of densitometry techniques to assess fracture risk.


The methods of discriminant analysis, logistic regression, Poisson regression models, and the Cox proportional hazard model are presented and compared. In addition, statistical concepts to characterize risk for the individual patient are reviewed.


Bone densitometry Fracture risk Performance Quality 



The study was supported by travel grants of the International Commission on Radiation Units (ICRU). We thank the ICRU for the possibility to separately publish a part of the forthcoming report on bone densitometry. Members of the report committee are W. Kalender, Institute of Medical Physics, University of Erlangen (head); P. Laugier, Laboratoire d’Imagérie Paramétrique, Université Paris IV; J. Shepherd, Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco; T. Fuerst, Synarc Inc., San Francisco; and two of the authors of this article (KE and CCG).


  1. 1.
    Sheskin DJ (1997) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Metz CE, Goodenough DJ, Rossmann K (1973) Evaluation of receiver operating characteristic curve data in terms of information theory, with applications in radiography. Radiology 109:297–303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen JH (1998) Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med 17:1033–1053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson RA, Wichern DW (1988) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Su JQ, Liu JS (1993) Linear combinations of multiple diagnostic markers. J Am Stat Assoc 88:1350–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lachenbruch PA, Mickey MA (1968) Estimation of error rates in discriminant analysis. Technometrics 10:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H (1982) Epidemiologic research: principles and quantitative methods. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang J, Yu KF (1998) What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 280:1690–1691Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP (2003) Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 157:940–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davison A, Hinckley D (1997) Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hui SL, Slemenda CW, Carey MA, Johnston CC Jr (1995) Choosing between predictors of fractures. J Bone Miner Res 10: 1816–1822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lunt M, O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D et al (2003) Characteristics of a prevalent vertebral deformity predict subsequent vertebral fracture: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Bone 33:505–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A et al (2001) Ten-year probabilities of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD and diagnostic thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12:989–995Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hochberg MC, Greenspan S, Wasnich RD et al (2002) Changes in bone density and turnover explain the reductions in incidence of nonvertebral fractures that occur during treatment with antiresorptive agents. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:1586–1592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ensrud KE, Thompson DE, Cauley JA et al (2000) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict mortality and hospitalization in older women with low bone mass. Fracture intervention trial research group. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:241–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vermunt J (1997) Log-linear models for event histories. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (1980) The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS (2000) Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics 56:337–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Collet D (1994) Modelling survival data in medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Callas PW, Pastides H, Hosmer DW (1998) Empirical comparisons of proportional hazards, Poisson, and logistic regression modeling of occupational cohort data. Am J Ind Med 33:33–47Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D’Agostino RB, Lee ML, Belanger AJ et al (1990) Relation of pooled logistic regression to time dependent Cox regression analysis: the Framingham Heart Study. Stat Med 9:1501–1515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sun J (1997) Regression analysis of interval-censored failure time data. Stat Med 16:497–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Austin PC, Tu JV (2004) Automated variable selection methods for logistic regression produced unstable models for predicting acute myocardial infarction mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 57:1138–1146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Laet CE, Van Hout BA, Burger H et al (1998) Hip fracture prediction in elderly men and women: validation in the Rotterdam study. J Bone Miner Res 13:1587–1593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE et al (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 280:2077–2082Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation` 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medizinische Physik, Klinik für Diagnostische RadiologieUniversitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Departments of Radiology, Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Medical PhysicsUniversity of ErlangenErlangenGermany
  4. 4.Medizinische Physik, Klinik für Diagnostische RadiologieKielGermany

Personalised recommendations