Position Statement
What Are the Standards by Which Bone Mass Measurement at Peripheral Skeletal Sites Should Be Used in the Diagnosis of Osteoporosis?

https://doi.org/10.1385/JCD:5:3S:S39Get rights and content

Abstract

Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) at central skeletal sites with dual X-ray absorptiometry is the “gold standard” both for the diagnosis of osteoporosis using the criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO) and for monitoring individuals receiving antiresorptive treatment for osteoporosis. Measurement of BMD at peripheral sites (peripheral BMD) can be used to assess fracture risk, but application of the WHO criteria gives different prevalence values for “osteoporosis” with peripheral devices, and different risks for fracture at the same cut points. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference panelists reached the following conclusions about peripheral BMD testing: First, WHO T-score criteria should not be used with peripheral devices. Second, for the identification of a level for peripheral BMD measurements above which osteoporosis is unlikely, device-specific cut points for peripheral BMD should be identified that have 90% sensitivity for identifying patients who have osteoporosis (T-score of –2.5 or below) based on measurements of the spine and hip. If central BMD testing is available, patients who have peripheral BMD below the 90% sensitivity level should have a central BMD measurement. If central BMD testing is not available, peripheral BMD might be used for identification of patients who are likely to have osteoporosis. Risk-based cut points were preferred to prevalence-based cut points, and, again, device-specific cut points are needed. For patients tested only with a peripheral BMD device whose result is intermediate, clinical judgment would be needed. Third, peripheral BMD testing should not be used for monitoring patients who are taking antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis. Fourth, peripheral BMD testing performs best when used for postmenopausal women. Further research on all these issues is needed.

References (28)

  • E Siris et al.

    Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment

    JAMA

    (2001)
  • D Marshall et al.

    Meta-analysis of how well measurements of bone mineral density predict the occurrence of osteoporotic fractures

    BMJ

    (1996)
  • PD Miller et al.

    Prediction of fracture risk in postmenopausal Caucasian women with peripheral densitometry: evidence from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment (NORA)

    J Bone Miner Res 2002

    (2002)
  • DC Bauer et al.

    A prospective study of dry calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and fracture risk in older women: The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures

    J Bone Miner Res

    (2001)
  • Cited by (80)

    • Variations in morphological and biomechanical indices at the distal radius in subjects with identical BMD

      2011, Journal of Biomechanics
      Citation Excerpt :

      In circumstances where central BMD is not available, the 1/3 radius T-score may be used. Peripheral BMD can be used to assess fracture risk, but device- and site-specific cut points must be used for highest fracture risk accuracy (Miller et al., 2002). Distal radius aBMD is significantly correlated with aBMD measured at both lumbar spine and total hip (r=0.54 and 0.60, respectively, p<0.001) (Liu et al., 2010).

    • Assess the discrimination of Achilles InSight calcaneus quantitative ultrasound device for osteoporosis in Chinese women: Compared with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements

      2010, European Journal of Radiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, DXA devices are relatively expensive and are hospital-based facilities. In recent years quantitative ultrasound (QUS) has been established as an alternative technique for the assessment of bone status [5–12], and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has recommended QUS to be a useful screening tool to identify those patients who should be considered for spine and hip density measurements [13]. QUS has several advantages including radiation free, low cost and portability.

    • The ability of hand digital X-ray radiogrammetry to identify middle-aged and elderly women with reduced bone density, as assessed by femoral neck dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

      2010, Journal of Clinical Densitometry
      Citation Excerpt :

      The disadvantage of this method is the rather low sensitivity and specificity to identify individuals with reduced bone density. In an earlier report, The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) recommended for peripheral measurements a single cutoff with 90% sensitivity to identify individuals with T-score ≤ −2.5 SD, whereas those with bone density values less than the threshold value should be reassessed with axial DXA (16). If this approach had been applied on our cohort using only the upper threshold, 43% would be likely to not have T-score ≤ −2.5 SD at the femoral neck and, as such, not need referral for a central DXA.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text