Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:03:52.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recommendations for the Application of Bone Density Measurement: What Can You Believe?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Deborah A. Marshall ,
Trevor A. Sheldon  and
Egon Jonsson
Deborah A. Marshall
Affiliation:
The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care
Trevor A. Sheldon
Affiliation:
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
Egon Jonsson
Affiliation:
The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the conclusions of published reports that review the literature and make recommendations about appropriate applications of bone density measurement. It is based on a survey of 22 organizations producing such reports between 1986 and Spring 1995. Overall, the application of bone density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis was supported by 65% of reports, by 44% for the monitoring and follow-up of patients with previously diagnosed disease, and by 59% for monitoring and follow-up of patients receiving treatment that may affect their bone density. A smaller proportion of reports from government and public organizations compared with other types of organizations and a smaller proportion of reports using more rigorous methods supported the applications for bone density measurement identified in the survey. A larger proportion of the reports published after 1990 compared with those published between 1986 and 1990 support the applications of bone density measurement, with the exception of population screening. The results of this survey suggest that there is considerable disagreement about the potential applications of bone density measurement. Publicly funded organisations and those using more rigorous methods tended to be more conservative in their conclusions.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , Spring 1997 , pp. 411 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Advisory Group on Osteoporosis, Department of Health, United Kingdom, 1994.Google Scholar
2.Agence Nationale pour le Developpement de l'Evaluation Medicale. Evaluation de l'osteodensitometrie. France, 1991.Google Scholar
3.Akademie für Medizinische Diagnoseevaluierung. Der Diagnostische Wert der Osteodensitometrie beim Krankheitsbild der Osteoporose. Germany, 1993.Google Scholar
4.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Osteoporosis. Technical Bulletin #167. United States, 1992.Google Scholar
6.American College of Rheumatology: Position statement on bone density measurement. United States, 1989.Google Scholar
5.American College of Physicians, Health and Public Policy Committee. Bone mineral densitometry. United States, 1987.Google Scholar
7.American National Osteoporosis Foundation, National Institute of Arthritis and Mus-culo-Skeletal and Skin Diseases and European Foundation for Osteoporosis. Consensus Development Conference: Prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Denmark, 1990.Google Scholar
8.Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Prevention of osteoporotic fractures in women by estrogen replacement therapy. Canada, 1994.Google Scholar
9.Danish Medical Research Council and Danish Hospital Institute. Consensus report: Osteoporosis. Denmark, 1995.Google Scholar
10.European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease, National Osteoporosis Foundation, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Consensus Development Conference: Diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Denmark, 1993.Google Scholar
11.Evaluation de Technologias Sanitaria. Actuacion ante la Osteoporosis en el Pais Vasco. Spain, 1994.Google Scholar
12.Finnish Academy of Science and the Finish Medical Society Duodecim. Prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Finland, 1992.Google Scholar
13.Health Council of the Netherlands. Preventie van Osteoporose. The Netherlands, 1991.Google Scholar
14.Jergas, M., and Genant, H. K.Current methods and recent advances in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 1993, 36,1649–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Johnston, C. C., Slemenda, C. W., & Melton, L. J. III., Clinical use of bone densitometry. New England Journal of Medicine, 1991, 3324, 1105–09.Google Scholar
16.Marshall, D., Hailey, D., & Jonsson, E.Health policy on bone density measurement technology in Sweden and Australia. Health Policy 1995, 35, 217–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Mulrow, C. D.Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 1994, 309, 597–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Mulrow, C. D.The medical review article: State of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1987, 106, 485–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.National Health Technology Advisory Panel, Australian Institute of Health. Bone mineral assessment: An update. Australia, 1989.Google Scholar
20.National Osteoporosis Foundation, Scientific Advisory Board. Clinical indications for bone mass measurements. United States, 1988.Google Scholar
21.National Osteoporosis Society. Priorities for prevention: Osteoporosis. A decision-making document for diagnosis and prevention. United Kingdom, 1994.Google Scholar
22.Nordin, B. E. C.Guidelines for bone densitometry. Medical Journal of Australia, 1994, 160, 517–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Office for Health Technology Assessment. Dual photon absorptiometry for measuring bone mineral density. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.Google Scholar
24.Office for Health Technology Assessment. Single photon absorptiometry for measuring bone mineral density. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.Google Scholar
25.Oficina Tècnica d'Avaluació de Technologia Mèdica: Evaluatión de la densitometria osea. Spain, 1993.Google Scholar
26.Report on the Trent Regional Osteoporosis Working Party. The costs and benefits of screening for and preventing osteoporosis in Trent Region. United Kingdom, 1990.Google Scholar
27.Royal College of Physicians. Fractured neck of femur: Prevention and management London: Royal College of Physicians, 1989.Google Scholar
28.Sartoris, D. J.Clinical value of bone densitometry. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1994, 163, 133–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD guidelines for tho carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report No. 4. York: University of York 1996.Google Scholar
30.University of Leeds, University of York, Royal College of Physicians. Effective Health Care Bulletin, Number 1: Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1992.Google Scholar
31.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Hip fracture outcomes in people age 50 and over: Background paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.Google Scholar
32.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989.Google Scholar
33.World Health Organisation. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Geneva: WHO, 1994.Google Scholar