Osteoporosis International

, Volume 7, Supplement 3, pp 117–119 | Cite as

Utility of dual X-ray absorptiometry and single X-ray absorptiometry as diagnostic tools for involutional osteoporosis

  • T. Inoue
  • K. Yamazaki
  • K. Kushida


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Consensus development conferences. Consensus statement of the World Congress on Osteoporosis. Who are candidates for prevention and treatment for osteoporosis? Amsterdam, Holland, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Genant HK, Engelke K, Fuerst T, et al. Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: state of the art. J Bone Miner Res 1996;11:707–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller PD, Bonnick SL, Rosen CJ. Consensus of an international panel on the clinical utility of bone mass measurements in the detection of low bone mass in the adult population. Calcif Tissue Int 1996;58:207–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mazess RB. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for the manage-ment of bone disease. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am 1995;6:507–37.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kin K, Kushida K, Yamazaki K, et al. Bone mineral density of the spine in normal Japanese subjects using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Calcif Tissue Int 1991;49:101–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okamoto S, Kushida K, Yamazaki K, et al. Bone mineral density of the spine in normal Japanese subjects (2nd report) [in Japanese]. J Bone Miner Metab 1993;11:181–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ohmura A, Kushida K, Yamazaki K, et al. Bone mineral density and body composition in Japanese women. Calcif Tissue Int 1997;in press.Google Scholar
  8. 18.
    Yu W, Gluer CC, Fuerst T, et al. Influence of degenerative joint disease on spine bone mineral measurements in postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 1995;57:169–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    von der Recke P, Hansen MA, Overgaard K, Christiansen C. The impact of degenerative conditions in the spine on bone mineral density and fracture risk prediction. Osteoporos Int 1996;6:43–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kroger H, Huopio J, Honkanen R, et al. Prediction of fracture risk using axial bone mineral density in a perimenopausal population: a prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 1995;10:302–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cummings SR, Black D. Bone mass measurements and risk of fractures in Caucasian women: a review of findings from prospective studies. Am J Med 1995;98:S 24–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N. Perspective: the diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:1137–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Report of a WHO study group. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO technical report series 843. Geneva: WHO, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orimo H, Sugioka Y, Gorai I, et al. Diagnostic criteria of primary osteoporosis [in Japanese]. J Bone Miner Metab 1995;13:113–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fukunaga H. Cut off values for diagnosis of osteoporosis in bone densitometry [in Japanese]. J Bone Miner Metab 1996;14:101–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Foundation for Osteoporosis 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Inoue
    • 1
  • K. Yamazaki
    • 1
  • K. Kushida
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHamamatsu University School of MedicineHamamatsuJapan

Personalised recommendations