ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017
Incidence and Predictors of Repeat Bone Mineral Densitometry: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- An AI-based pipeline for osteoporosis/osteopenia prediction using hip radiographs.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of different methods for monitoring changes in bone mineral density during follow-up measurements.PloS one · 2026Article
- An injectable magnesium-loaded hydrogel releases hydrogen to promote osteoporotic bone repair via ROS scavenging and immunomodulation.Theranostics · 2024Article
- Reassessment Intervals for Transition From Low to High Fracture Risk Among Adults Older Than 50 Years.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Intervals between bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in clinical practice.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019Article
- Capsule Commentary on VanGompel et al., Incidence and Predictors of Repeat Bone Mineral Densitometry: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
- Irrational Exuberance in Medicine.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of CT-Based Finite Element Modeling for Osteoporosis Screening in Secondary Fracture Prevention: An Early Health Technology Assessment in the Netherlands.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExisting guidelines for repeat screening and treatment monitoring intervals regarding the use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans are conflicting or lacking. The Choosing Wisely campaign recommends against repeating DXA scans within 2 years of initial screening. It is unclear how frequently physicians order repeat scans and what clinical factors contribute to their use.
objectiveTo estimate cumulative incidence and predictors of repeat DXA for screening or treatment monitoring in a regional health system.
designRetrospective longitudinal cohort study
participantsA total of 5992 women aged 40-84 years who received initial DXA screening from 2006 to 2011 within a regional health system in Sacramento, CA. MAIN MEASURES: Two- and five-year cumulative incidence and hazard rations (HR) of repeat DXA by initial screening result (classified into three groups: low or high risk of progression to osteoporosis, or osteoporosis) and whether women were prescribed osteoporosis drugs after initial DXA. KEY
resultsAmong women not treated after initial DXA, 2-year cumulative incidence for low-risk, high-risk, and osteoporotic women was 8.0%, 13.8%, and 19.6%, respectively, increasing to 42.9%, 60.4%, and 57.4% by 5 years after initial screening. For treated women, median time to repeat DXA was over 3 years for all groups. Relative to women with low-risk initial DXA, high-risk initial DXA significantly predicted repeat screening for untreated women [adjusted HR 1.67 (95% CI 1.40-2.00)] but not within the treated group [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.91-1.30)].
conclusionsRepeat DXA screening was common in women both at low and high risk of progression to osteoporosis, with a substantial proportion of women receiving repeat scans within 2 years of initial screening. Conversely, only 60% of those at high-risk of progression to osteoporosis were re-screened within 5 years. Interventions are needed to help clinicians make higher-value decisions regarding repeat use of DXA scans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.