ReviewJBMR plus2026
Rethinking race-based interpretation in pediatric densitometry: a scoping review.
Review in JBMR plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As pediatric populations in the United States (US) become increasingly diverse, current practices for interpreting bone density using DXA in children warrant reevaluation. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry currently recommends adjusting pediatric bone density Z-scores by race, sex, and age. However, race-based adjustments risk reinforcing disparities and perpetuating systemic inequities in pediatric bone health assessment. We conducted a scoping review of studies examining racial and ethnic differences in BMD among healthy US children, identifying 3960 records across 4 databases, of which 54 met inclusion criteria. Across these studies, reporting of race and ethnicity was inconsistent: although nearly all relied on self- or parent-report, none provided explicit definitions, and only 13% confirmed concordance across grandparents. Fifty percent of studies reported statistically significant racial differences in BMD, yet most did so without comprehensive covariate adjustment. By contrast, studies that accounted for height, lean mass, and pubertal status frequently found that differences attenuated or disappeared. These findings underscore the need to critically reconsider race-based adjustments in pediatric DXA interpretation. Developing and validating race-neutral reference standards, with attention to structural determinants and biologically relevant measures, such as stature, body composition, and pubertal timing, is essential for achieving a more equitable and clinically meaningful assessment of pediatric bone health.
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.