Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 251–252 | Cite as

Guidelines for the clinical utilization of bone mass measurement in the adult population

  • P. D. Miller


  1. 1.
    The WHO Study Group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. World Health Organization, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9: 1137–1141Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Davis JW, Vogel JM (1989) A comparison of single and multi-site BMC measurements for assessment of spine fracture probability. J Nucl Med 30: 1166–1171Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ross PD, David JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD (1991) Preexisting fractures and bone mass predict vertebral fracture incidence in women. Ann Intern Med 114: 919–923Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rubin SM, Cummings SR (1992) Results of bone densitometry affect women's decisions about taking measures to prevent fractures. Ann Intern Med 116: 990–995Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Melton LJ III, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon WM, Wahner HW, Riggs BL (1993) Long-term fracture prediction by bone mineral assessed at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res 8: 1227–1233Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC et al (1993) Bone density at various ties for prediction of hip fractures. Lancet 341: 72–75Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wasnich RD, David JW, Ross PD (1994) Spine fracture risk is predicted by non-spine fractures. Osteoporosis Int 4: 1–5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wasnich RD, Ross PD, David JW, Vogel JM (1989) A comparison of single and multi-site BMC measurements for assessment of spine fracture probability. J Nucl Med 30: 1166–1171Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pouilles JM, Tremollieres R, Ribot C (1993) Spine and femur densitometry at the menopause: Are both sites necessany in the assessment of the risk of osteoporosis? Calcif Tissue Int 52: 344–347Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lai D, Rencken M, Drinkwater B, Chesnut CH III (1993) Site of bone density measurement may affect therapy decision. Calcif Tissue Int 53: 225–228Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelly TL, Crane G, Baran DT (1994) Single X-ray absorptiometry of the forearm: precision, correlation and reference data. Calcif Tissue Int 54: 212–218Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Verheij LF, Blokland JAK, Papapoulos SE, Zwinderman AH, Pauwels EKJ (1992) Optimization of follow-up measurements of bone mass. J Nucl Med 33: 1406–1410Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christiansen C (1994) Postmenopausal bone loss and the risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int 9(S1):S47-S51Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fogelman I, Ryan P (1992) Measurement of bone mass. Bone 13(SI):S23-S28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wahner HW, Fogelman I (1994) The evaluation of osteoporosis: dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in clinical practice. Mayo Foundation and Ignac Fogelman, London, UK, pp 22, 23, 178–195Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gluer CC, Vahlensieck M, Faulkner KG, Engelke K, Black D, Genant HK (1992) Site-matched calcaneal measurements of broad-band ultrasound attenuation and single X-ray absorptiometry: Do they measure different skeletal properties? J Bone Miner Res 7: 1071–1079Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Butz S, Wuster C, Scheidt-Nave C, Gotz M, Ziegler R (1994) Forearm BMD as measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) in a German reference population. Osteoporosis Int 4: 179–184Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang S-O, et al (1994) Radiographic absorptiometry for bone mineral measurement of the phalanges: precision and accuracy study. Radiology 192: 857–859Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faulkner K, McClung M (1995) Quality control of DXA instruments in multicenter trials. Osteoporosis Int (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. D. Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Colorado Health Sciences CenterNorwich

Personalised recommendations