Bone densitometry worldwide: a global survey by the ISCD and IOF
Open accessAbstract
In a global survey of fracture liaison services, most reported that DXA access met needs. However, adherence to basic DXA quality and reporting procedures was confirmed by only around 50% of institutions and many required education for operators/interpreters. Overall, there is significant variability in the access to, and quality of, DXA services worldwide. Introduction While the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has been widely adopted worldwide for the assessment of bone mineral density, the quality of DXA facilities is unknown. To address this, a global survey of fracture liaison services (FLS) was conducted by the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) to assess the quality of their DXA facilities. Methods A questionnaire for the accessibility and quality of DXA services was co-created by representatives of the ISCD and the IOF and made available to institutions who participated in the Capture the Fracture Best Practice Framework. From a list of 331 contacted invitees, 124 FLS centres responded; analyses were based on 121 centres with suitable data. Results Over 70% of institutions reported that, for over 90% of the time, DXA access met service needs, and the scanning/reporting quality was perceived as excellent. However, 25% of DXA facilities reported not being accredited by a professional/governmental organization, and adherence to some basic DXA quality assurance and reporting procedures was confirmed by < 50% of services. Importantly, in excess of 50% of institutions stated that they desired ongoing education in osteoporosis and DXA for operators and interpreters. Conclusion There is significant variability in the access to and quality of DXA services for established FLS worldwide. Despite two decades of training initiatives in osteoporosis densitometry, many centres are falling short of the standards of the IOF-ISCD Osteoporosis Essentials criteria.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is significant variability in access to DXA services and many fall short of international quality standards.
“Second, there is significant variability in the access to DXA services and many fall short of international quality standards [14].”
From Automatic opportunistic osteoporosis screening in routine CT: improved prediction of patients with prevalent vertebral fractures compared to DXA (2021) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- [1]Johnell O Kanis J An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures Osteoporos Int 2006 17 1726 1733 16983459
- [2]Hernlund E Svedbom A Ivergård M Compston J Cooper C Stenmark J McCloskey EV Jönsson B Kanis JA Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden Arch Osteoporos 2013 8 136 24113837 PMC3880487
- [3]Marshall D Johnell O Wedel H Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures BMJ 1996 312 1254 1259 8634613 PMC2351094
- [4]Kanis J Odén A Johnell O Johansson H De Laet C Brown J Burckhardt P Cooper C Christiansen C Cummings S Eisman J The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women Osteoporos Int 2007 18 1033 1046 17323110
- [5]Kanis J Johnell O Odén A Johansson H McCloskey E FRAX™ and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK Osteoporos Int 2008 19 385 397 18292978 PMC2267485
- [6]Kanis J Osteoporosis--the silent epidemic Health Visit 1989 62 14 15 2914766
- [7]Curtis EM Moon RJ Harvey NC Cooper C The impact of fragility fracture and approaches to osteoporosis risk assessment worldwide Bone 2017 104 29 38 28119181 PMC5420448
- [8]Mithal A Bansal B Kyer CS Ebeling P The Asia-Pacific Regional Audit-Epidemiology, Costs, and Burden of Osteoporosis in India 2013: A report of International Osteoporosis Foundation Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2014 18 449 454 25143898 PMC4138897
- [9]Kanis J Johnell O Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe Osteoporos Int 2005 16 229 238 15618996
- [10]Harvey NC McCloskey EV Mitchell PJ Dawson-Hughes B Pierroz DD Reginster J-Y Rizzoli R Cooper C Kanis JA Mind the (treatment) gap: a global perspective on current and future strategies for prevention of fragility fractures Osteoporos Int 2007 28 1507 1529 PMC5392413 28175979
- [11]Overman RA Farley JF Curtis JR Zhang J Gourlay ML Deal CL DXA utilization between 2006 and 2012 in commercially insured younger postmenopausal women J Clin Densitom 2015 18 145 149 25700662 PMC4420644
- [12]Lewiecki EM Binkley N Morgan SL Shuhart CR Camargos BM Carey JJ Gordon CM Jankowski LG Lee J-K Leslie WD Best practices for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement and reporting: International Society for Clinical Densitometry Guidance J Clin Densitom 2016 19 127 140 27020004
- [13]Messina C Bandirali M Sconfienza LM D’Alonzo NK Di Leo G Papini GDE Ulivieri FM Sardanelli F Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry Eur Radiol 2015 25 1504 1511 25428701
- [14]Promma S Sritara C Wipuchwongsakorn S Chuamsaamarkkee K Utamakul C Chamroonrat W Kositwattanarerk A Anongpornjossakul Y Thamnirat K Ongphiphadhanakul B Errors in patient positioning for bone mineral density assessment by dual X-ray absorptiometry: effect of technologist retraining J Clin Densitom 2018 21 252 259 28802981
- [15]Krueger D Shives E Siglinsky E Libber J Buehring B Hansen K Binkley N DXA errors are common and reduced by use of a reporting template J Clin Densitom 2019 22 115 124 30327243
- [16]Ganda K Puech M Chen J Speerin R Bleasel J Center J Eisman J March L Seibel M Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2013 24 393 406 22829395
- [17]Sale J Beaton D Posen J Elliot-Gibson V Bogoch E Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients Osteoporos Int 2011 22 2067 2082 21607808
- [18]Marsh D Åkesson K Beaton D Bogoch E Boonen S Brandi M-L McLellan A Mitchell P Sale J Wahl D Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients Osteoporos Int 2011 22 2051 2065 21607807
- [19]Eisman JA Bogoch ER Dell R Harrington JT McKinney RE Jr McLellan A Mitchell PJ Silverman S Singleton R Siris E Making the first fracture the last fracture: ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention J Bone Miner Res 2012 27 2039 2046 22836222
- [20]Kanis J Cooper C Rizzoli R Reginster J European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women Osteoporos Int 2019 30 3 44 30324412 PMC7026233
- [21]Greenspan SL Wyman A Hooven FH Adami S Gehlbach S Anderson FA Jr Boone S Lacroix AZ Lindsay R Netelenbos J Pfeilschifter J Predictors of treatment with osteoporosis medications after recent fragility fractures in a multinational cohort of postmenopausal women J Am Geriatr Soc 2012 60 455 461 22316070 PMC3955945
- [25]Åkesson K Marsh D Mitchell PJ McLellan A Stenmark J Pierroz D Kyer C Cooper C Capture the Fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle Osteoporos Int 2013 24 2135 2152 23589162 PMC3706734
- [26]Javaid M Kyer C Mitchell P Chana J Moss C Edwards M McLellan A Stenmark J Pierroz D Schneider M Kanis J Effective secondary fracture prevention: implementation of a global benchmarking of clinical quality using the IOF Capture the Fracture® Best Practice Framework tool Osteoporos Int 2015 26 2573 2578 26070301
Cited by
Sorted by citations
UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis
Gregson, C. L., Armstrong, D. J., Bowden, J., Cooper, C., Edwards, J., Gittoes, N. J. L., Harvey, N., Kanis, J., Leyland, S., Low, R., et al. (2022) · Archives of Osteoporosis · doi:10.1007/s11657-022-01061-5 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Self-citationLöffler, M. T., Jacob, A., Scharr, A., Sollmann, N., Burian, E., El Husseini, M., Sekuboyina, A., Tetteh, G., Zimmer, C., Gempt, J., et al. (2021) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-020-07655-2 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
“Second, there is significant variability in the access to DXA services and many fall short of international quality standards [14].”
Background
- Authors
- on behalf of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), Clynes, M. A., Westbury, L. D., Dennison, E. M., Kanis, J. A., Javaid, M. K., Harvey, N. C., Fujita, M., Cooper, C., Leslie, W. D., & Shuhart, C. R.
- Affiliations
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit (GB)
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- Australian Catholic University (AU)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- International Osteoporosis Foundation (CH)
- University of Manitoba (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Cooper, C.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Osteoporosis International
- Published
- 2020-05-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1779-1786
- ISSN
- 0937-941X (ISSN-L)
- 1433-2965
- PMC
- PMC7115939
- OpenAlex
- W3023309895
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 7.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Osteoporosis International (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- International Society for Clinical Densitometry
- International Osteoporosis Foundation
- UK Medical Research Council
- University of Southampton
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
- Keywords
- dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, bone densitometry, fracture liaison service, osteoporosis, access to diagnostic services
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Osteoporosis, Surveys and Questionnaires, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Fractures, Bone
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review