Skip to main content
Log in

Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry

Part 1: Errors and diagnosis

  • Review
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Bone densitometry is one of the main pillars in the assessment of osteoporosis. The most important modalities are dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and quantitative ultrasound (QUS).

Materials and methods

For each modality a variety of technical solutions and numerous commercial devices are available and widely used for patient measurements. While the field of bone densitometry may be considered mature, new modalities and devices are being introduced. Consequently, there is a constant need to assess and compare the quality of bone densitometry approaches and devices in a rigorous way.

Results

The International Commission on Radiation Units has commissioned a report on bone densitometry to address some of these issues, in particular to provide clear definitions of quantities and units used and to describe parameters and methods that can be used to compare and standardize densitometric equipment and measurements. One of the core chapters of the report summarizes quality and performance measures in bone densitometry. It is divided into four sections: physical performance measures, diagnosis, fracture risk, and monitoring. Here we publish part 1 of this chapter containing the first two sections: physical performance measures and issues in diagnosing osteoporosis.

Conclusion

Following the international standard (ISO 5725-1), trueness, bias, repeatability, and reproducibility are defined along with terms common to osteoporosis research, such as accuracy and precision. Building on the conceptual definition of osteoporosis, diagnostic criteria are defined and discussed including criteria for reference data. Based on this, clinical performance measures commonly used for the diagnosis of osteoporosis are reviewed and discussed.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Formerly, trueness was denoted as accuracy that now encompasses trueness and precision.

  2. Formerly, bias was often denoted as accuracy error.

  3. In the literature, the term “precision error” is often used for imprecision.

  4. The ICRU report will endorse the use of BMDa to distinguish areal from volumetric BMD measurements. BMD only refers to volumetric density as measured by QCT; BMDa denotes areal BMD as measured by DXA.

References

  1. International Organization for Standardization (1994) ISO 5725-1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. ISO, Geneva

  2. Kalender WA, Suess C, Faust U (1988) Polyethylene-based water- and bone-equivalent materials for calibration phantoms in quantitative computed tomography. Biomed Tech (Berl) 33:73–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Duck F (1990) Physical properties of tissue. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Glüer CC, Blake G, Lu Y et al (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5:262–270

    Google Scholar 

  5. Consensus Development Conference (1993) Diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 94:646–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marwick C (2000) Consensus panel considers osteoporosis. JAMA 283:2093–2095

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO, Geneva

  8. Glüer CC (1999) Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques. J Bone Miner Res 14:1952–1962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kanis JA (1997) Diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 7(Suppl 3)S108–S116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Melton III LJ, A. E, Chrischilles EA et al (1992) How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7:1005–1010

  11. De Laet CE, van Hout BA, Burger H, Hofman A, Pols HA (1997) Bone density and risk of hip fracture in men and women: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 315:221–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Orwoll E (2000) Assessing bone density in men. J Bone Miner Res 15:1867–1870

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kanis JA, Glüer CC 2000 An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 11:192–202

    Google Scholar 

  14. Faulkner KG, von Stetten E, Miller P (1999) Discordance in patient classification using T-scores. J Clin Densitom 2:343–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Greenspan SL, Maitland-Ramsey L, Myers ER (1996) Classification of osteoporosis in the elderly is dependent on site-specific analysis. Calcif Tissue Int 58:409–414

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lu Y, Genant HK, Shepherd J et al (2001) Classification of osteoporosis based on bone mineral densities. J Bone Miner Res 16:901–910

    Google Scholar 

  17. Genant HK, Grampp S, Glüer CC et al (1994) Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 9:1503–1514

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hanson J, and International Committee for Standards in Bone Measurement (1997) Letter to the editor. Osteoporos Int 7:500–501

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shepherd JA, Cheng XG, Lu Y et al (2002) Universal standardization of forearm bone densitometry. J Bone Miner Res 17:734–745

    Google Scholar 

  20. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL et al (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–489

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lunt M, Felsenberg D, Reeve J et al (1997) Bone density variation and its effects on risk of vertebral deformity in men and women studied in thirteen European centers: the EVOS Study. J Bone Miner Res 12:1883–1894

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kleerekoper M (1999) Appendix. In: Favus MJ (ed) Primer on the metabolic bone diseases and disorders of mineral metabolism. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This 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 at San Francisco; T. Fuerst, Synarc, San Francisco, and the authors of this article. We also thank Y. Lu, Department of Radiology, University of California at San Francisco, for his valuable comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Engelke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engelke, K., Glüer, CC. Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry. Osteoporos Int 17, 1283–1292 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-0039-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-0039-0

Keywords

Navigation