ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2019
Intervals between bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in clinical practice.
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Intervals between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans were evaluated in a large cohort of typical clinical practice. Intensive DXA scanning (intervals < 23 months) decreased substantially, from 16.7% in 2006 to 6.7% in 2015.
introductionSerial dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements are suggested for patients at high risk of fractures. However, little is known about how often DXA testing occurs in clinical practice.
methodsWe examined time intervals between DXA testing for monitoring purpose at two academic medical centers in the US between 2004 and 2017. The primary outcome was the presence of testing intervals < 23 months (termed "intensive DXA testing"). A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate the association between selected patient-level clinical factors and intensive DXA testing.
resultsForty-nine thousand four hundred ninety-four DXA tests from 20,200 patients were analyzed. The mean time interval between scans was 36 ± 21 months. Only 11.1% of the repeated DXA testing met the criterion for intensive testing. The percentage of intensive DXA testing dropped from 16.7% in 2006 to 6.7% in 2015 (p for trend < 0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, number of outpatient visits, and calendar year, correlates of intensive DXA testing included a baseline T-score < -2.5 at any anatomic site (OR, 4.8; 95%CI, 4.0-5.7), active use of drugs for osteoporosis (OR, 1.6; 95%CI, 1.3-1.9), and active use of glucocorticoids (OR, 1.3; 95%CI, 1.2-1.4).
conclusionsThe predictors of intensive DXA testing suggest that this practice is used preferentially in patients with multiple risk factors and to monitor the response to pharmacotherapy. However, intensive DXA testing has become less common in real-world clinical practice over the last decade. Further studies are required to better define the optimal use of bone mineral density testing in this vulnerable population.
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.